Oral
Answers to
Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Leaving the EU

John McNally: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the Welsh economy of the UK leaving the EU.

Gavin Newlands: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the Welsh economy of the UK leaving the EU.

Stephen Gethins: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the Welsh economy of the UK leaving the EU.

Alun Cairns: Wales approaches Brexit from a position of strength with a growing economy and falling unemployment, and our plan for Brexit will allow us to shape our own ambitious trade and investment opportunities, putting Wales and the wider UK at the forefront of global trade.

John McNally: The Welsh Affairs Committee has now joined in the calls for the retention of membership of the single market and customs union to protect the agricultural sector, in which 80% of Welsh exports go to the EU. Will the Secretary of State confirm what representations he made to the Prime Minister ahead of the Chequers agreement for continued membership for the agricultural sector?

Alun Cairns: As the House would expect, I looked closely at that report, but of course the outcome that the hon. Gentleman suggests would mean that we could not honour the expectations of the British people following the referendum decision to leave the European Union; it would mean retaining free movement of people. The Chequers agreement protects the agricultural sector so that it has the opportunity to trade frictionlessly with the European Union.

Gavin Newlands: By 2020, the Welsh economy will have been supported by almost £150 billion of investment through EU structural funds. The Government committed to replacing that funding, along with support for farming and the English NHS, with money from the mythical Brexit dividend. Now that it is clear that the UK will not receive a single penny back from Brexit, will the Secretary of State confirm that there will still be money for Wales?

Alun Cairns: The Government have committed to consult later this year on the UK shared prosperity fund, which will be a Brexit dividend. We are already seeing a Brexit dividend with the £20 billion increase in health spending, which will have considerable consequences for Scotland and, rightly, for Wales. As their budgets are protected, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will benefit significantly from that.

Stephen Gethins: The Secretary of State’s answer directly contradicts the UK Government’s own analysis, which shows that Wales and every other part of the United Kingdom will be badly hit by their plans for Brexit. If the Government do have a plan for Brexit, we would love to hear it—and is there any economic analysis for it?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman ignores the hard data, which shows record numbers of people in employment and sharp falls in unemployment. I have met a whole host of international investors from the US, Qatar, Japan and elsewhere, and we are seeing significant foreign direct investment projects coming to the UK. That shows the great opportunities there are as we leave the European Union.

Luke Graham: rose—

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

John Bercow: We will hear from Mr Elphicke, but it is very nice to see you, Mr Graham.

Charlie Elphicke: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important market to the Welsh economy is the internal market of the United Kingdom? That is also true for Scotland, which is why it makes no sense that the Scottish National party wants to peel Scotland away from the United Kingdom and the success of this nation.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. He is right to say that the UK market is more important to the Welsh and Scottish economies than any international market is. It has already been demonstrated that Scotland sells four times more to the rest of the UK than to any international market. That dependence on the UK economy is greater for the Welsh economy.

Stephen Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the economic benefit of the city deals that have been agreed in Wales and Scotland is evidence of what is possible when the UK Government and the devolved Administrations pull together in the same direction?

Alun Cairns: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard on the Stirling city growth deal? That is an exciting prospect, which will offer real opportunities for long-term economic regeneration. I take the opportunity to highlight the fact that Wales will be the only part of the UK that is entirely covered by city deals and growth deals. That meets the UK Government’s ambitious ambitions to close the wealth gap between the most prosperous and most deprived areas of the UK by raising the economic prospects in some of the poorest parts of the UK.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Given the impact of Brexit uncertainty on the Welsh rural economy, the Minister will surely agree that technology and science opportunities must be seized. What is he doing to ensure that Snowdonia Aerospace at Llanbedr becomes the UK’s first horizontal-launch spaceport?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Llanbedr offers great opportunities. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and I have spoken on a number of occasions about this, and I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the statement that was made last week and the additional money that is being made available to exploit the opportunities in Llanbedr. I am excited by this prospect, and we will put the hon. Lady’s constituency at the forefront of space technology.

John Bercow: Let us hear more about the horizontal port situation.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I will say more about the situation of the rural economy, given that the former Wales Office Minister, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), stood down this week to oppose the Brexiteers’ wrecking amendments. At next week’s Royal Welsh show, will the Secretary of State announce his resignation in protest at the Government’s policy of wrecking Welsh livestock farming?

Alun Cairns: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for his excellent work at the Ministry of Defence in supporting the defence services across the whole UK, as well as his role in looking after agriculture as a Wales Office Minister. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Chequers agreement provides a frictionless trading opportunity for Welsh farmers that will allow them to continue to sell Welsh beef and lamb, and other Welsh produce, to the European Union as they do at the moment.

John Bercow: In calling the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), I congratulate him on what I understand is, unbelievably, his 60th birthday.

Chris Ruane: It’s a hard life!
The shadow Wales team recently met Farmers Union of Wales representatives, who are desperately worried about the future funding of Welsh agriculture post Brexit. If future farm funding is allocated using the Barnett formula, Welsh farmers will lose £133 million a year, taking £1 billion out of the Welsh economy. That would decimate rural communities and thousands of family-run farms. What steps is the Minister taking to guarantee Welsh agriculture the same level of funding post Brexit?

Alun Cairns: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his significant birthday. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and I meet Welsh farming unions regularly, and we also meet them jointly with the Welsh Government’s Agriculture Minister. That demonstrates the collaborative approach that we are taking. If I have said once, I have said 100 times that we will not be using the Barnett formula to distribute agricultural spend. Clearly, the current level of spend is the starting point, and we will be consulting in due course. The financial  protection that the UK Government have given to Wales, whereby Wales now receives £120 for every £100 spent in England, demonstrates the priority that we put on protecting Wales’s interests.

International Trading Opportunities: Promotion

Ranil Jayawardena: What recent steps he has taken to promote Wales’s international trading opportunities.

Alun Cairns: My Department continues to work closely with the Department for International Trade on promoting Wales’s trading opportunities. During my recent trips to Qatar, Kuwait, Hong Kong and the US I saw at first hand the enthusiasm for Welsh exports as well as the potential for foreign direct investment projects to come to Wales.

Ranil Jayawardena: Given Wales’s connectivity on the M4 corridor, does my right hon. Friend agree that we can truly capitalise on trading opportunities internationally for Wales and, indeed, the Thames valley by improving the Reading to Gatwick road corridor?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have been a strong supporter of the third runway at Heathrow because it is important to the Welsh economy, and connectivity to airports is vital to deliver its prospects and objectives. He is right about the M4 corridor. With the abolition of the Severn tolls, it creates an opportunity for a natural economy to develop between Bath, Bristol, Newport and the south Wales economy in general, to create further economic growth.

Owen Smith: The Secretary of State knows that Airbus is one of Wales’s most important trading entities and companies, so does he think it is a good or bad sign that the chief executive of Airbus is so worried about the Government screwing up Brexit that he is now stockpiling goods that he feels he will not be able to get in to make his finished products?

Alun Cairns: I think the hon. Gentleman is out-of-date. The latest statements from Airbus have welcomed the Chequers agreement, because it will allow the company to protect its supply chain. That demonstrates the positive relationship that we have with large international companies, in seeking to protect their interests but taking the opportunities of leaving the European Union and looking to new markets elsewhere.

Jonathan Edwards: Is it not the case that following the passing of the Trade Bill yesterday, Wallonia, a region of Belgium, will have more influence over EU trade policy than Wales will have over post-Brexit UK trade policy?

Alun Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade announced that we will have the widest, most extensive consultation in relation to future trading arrangements. We will not only talk to the devolved Administrations regularly, as I always do, but talk to key stakeholders in Wales to ensure that we respond to their priorities. We are determined to have the widest consultation to ensure that people have the facts at hand rather than sometimes inaccurate reports.

Chris Evans: The expanding digital economy will bring further opportunities for Welsh businesses, yet they tell me all the time that broadband speeds are still too slow to trade. What are the Government doing about this?

Alun Cairns: On average, the superfast broadband threshold in Wales is higher than it is across the rest of the UK, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that more work needs to be done. Significant sums of money have been available, with £69 million going to the Welsh Government from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in addition to the £56 million of gainshare that has come from that. Of course, the priority on how the Welsh Government spend that has largely been driven and directed by them. I am keen to work closely with them to see that we can get to the communities that have not yet received superfast broadband, because clearly that brings them opportunities economically.

Cross-border Rail Services

Justin Madders: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border rail services to and from Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Andrew: The Government recognise that cross-border connectivity is critically important. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to look at what improvements can be made to support better journeys for Welsh and English passengers.

Justin Madders: People in Neston are concerned that the rail timetable to be introduced by the new operator on the Wrexham to Bidston line may lead to an inferior service on the English side of the border. When I asked the Rail Minister about that recently, he told me that it was the Welsh Assembly’s responsibility, not his; but my constituents have no representation there. Who is accountable for services on the English side of the border within this Parliament?

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Wales & Borders franchise is part of the Government’s commitment to devolving powers, so there is a joint responsibility between the two Governments. If he wants me to make representations on his behalf to the Welsh Government, I would be more than happy to do so.

Stephen Crabb: Has my hon. Friend had the chance to speak to the management of Great Western Railway about the total shambles that was its rail service last Sunday afternoon, when thousands of passengers faced cancelled or disrupted trains due to staffing problems arising from the World cup final? England did not qualify for the final and Wales was not even at the tournament, so it should not have led to meltdown on the rail network last Sunday.

Stuart Andrew: My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. When these services do not run effectively, that has a massive impact on his constituents and all  commuters. I would be happy to meet him to discuss this further, so that we can take it up with the people responsible.

Jo Stevens: My constituents were promised electric trains running into Cardiff Central by last year. This week, we found out that they will not even be coming into Cardiff Central by the end of next year. When will the Minister sort out the shambles that is the Great Western Railway line from London to Cardiff?

Stuart Andrew: It is important to recognise that we are investing a massive amount of money to ensure that the electrification brings about improved journey times. The Welsh Government have come up with some suggestions about how we might resolve these issues, and we will work with them collaboratively on that. Let us not forget, though, that this Government are making a massive investment in the railway system.

David Jones: How is work progressing to develop the business case for the north-east Wales metro?

Stuart Andrew: My right hon. Friend will know that we are looking at a host of different projects that will improve journey times for passengers in north Wales, such as the Wrexham to Bidston line. On the specific issue that he raises, we are looking at that across the board, including through the growth deal that we are developing at the moment.

John Bercow: Order. In generously but appropriately congratulating the Minister not on his birthday but on the magnificence of his tie, can I urge him to face the Chamber so that we enjoy the benefit of his mellifluous tones?

Stephen Doughty: It is not just the cancellations and the delays to electrification—it is the short trains, the short-staffed trains, the lack of reservations and the lack of catering. Great Western Railway is an absolute shambles. What on earth is the Minister going to do about it? Is he going to talk to the Secretary of State for Transport, as it is his responsibility?

Stuart Andrew: I am glad that you like my tie, Mr Speaker.
First, I point out that the Government are investing more in our railways than any Government since Victorian times. I accept that there may be some issues with the service, and I will happily arrange to meet GWR to raise the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Leaving the EU: White Paper

Tommy Sheppard: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the UK Government’s White Paper on leaving the EU.

Stuart McDonald: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the UK Government’s White Paper on leaving the EU.

Peter Grant: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the UK Government’s White Paper on leaving the EU.

Alun Cairns: In line with commitments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Government shared the White Paper on our future relationship with the European Union with the Welsh Government in advance of its publication. This followed a regular dialogue with Welsh Ministers as the paper was being drafted.

Tommy Sheppard: The Government have proposed 26 policy areas where joint arrangements will be necessary with the Welsh Government after Brexit. Given the proposal in the Chequers agreement and the White Paper for a common rulebook with the EU, in how many of those areas will such arrangements no longer be necessary?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman refers to an ongoing relationship and dialogue with the Welsh Government. He will be aware that the Welsh Government were happy to give a legislative consent motion to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as it passed through the Palace of Westminster, which demonstrates the mutual respect and ongoing productive relationship that we have. I only wish that the Scottish Government would work in the same constructive, positive way.

Stuart McDonald: The White Paper’s mobility proposals for business visitors and intra-company transfers might be all right for large multinational companies in London, but they offer nothing to small businesses in Wales and important public services. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that they can still recruit the EU workers they need, if Brexit happens?

Alun Cairns: I have referred on several occasions to the expert panel I formed, which is being extended, and to joint meetings I have held with Welsh Government Ministers. We are keen to engage with businesses of all sizes. Large companies such as Airbus often receive much attention, but it is only right that small businesses, which often depend on their supply chains, receive a similar amount of attention.

Peter Grant: I do not think even the UK Government still believe that the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe is fit for purpose. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for it to be replaced by a statutory forum that gives equal power of esteem to all four nations in these islands?

Alun Cairns: A previous Joint Ministerial Committee committed to look at intergovernmental arrangements and how we can best develop and evolve them in the light of our exit from the European Union. My relationship with the Welsh Government is positive. It takes a lot of hard work on both sides, and I am keen to maintain  the warmest sort of arrangements because we respect the outcome of the referendum and the importance of the UK internal market.

John Bercow: The Secretary of State is stoical in the circumstances, but there is an excessive number of rather loud private conversations taking place. An air of solemnity should descend on the House as we are about to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee.

David Davies: We are seeing record numbers of people in work in Wales and record amounts of foreign direct investment, and we have a set of proposals that will allow Wales to benefit from access to the single market and new trade deals across the world. Is it not about time that Members of Parliament on both sides of the House got behind the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales as they lead Wales to a better future outside the European Union?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to him for the work he does as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Not only does the UK remain the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment, but Wales has seen a 20% increase in the employment created out of that investment. Our exports are growing to record levels and, interestingly, those to areas outside the European Union are growing at a faster rate than those to the European Union.

James Duddridge: The White Paper is a little light on the benefits of World Trade Organisation rules. Will the Secretary of State discuss the benefits of those rules with the Welsh Government alongside the White Paper?

Alun Cairns: I will naturally continue an ongoing dialogue with the Welsh Government about a whole host of issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade yesterday agreed to and committed to consult widely, including the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are great opportunities as we leave the European Union to look at new markets, but nor should we undermine the existing complex supply chains that have built up over 40 years. The Chequers White Paper, I believe, allows us to do both.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend reach out beyond the Welsh Government to businesses in Wales to exemplify the opportunities that are going to be created as we leave the European Union?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We often, rightly, give a lot of attention to the devolved Administrations because they are elected bodies in the nations themselves, but businesses in Wales depend on the UK market and their view is also important as we develop and evolve our policy towards the negotiations to leave the European Union.

Christina Rees: I join in the birthday wishes to my youthful shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).
It has been two years since the Prime Minister met the First Minister of Wales in Cardiff Bay and stood on the steps of the Senedd, telling politicians and journalists how important the Union is and that she wanted the Welsh Government to be involved in Brexit discussions, so why was the White Paper not shared with the Welsh Government until barely 12 hours before its publication?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady is right that the document was shared with the Welsh Government before it was published. I can also say that many extracts—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. The microphone is not functioning as well as it should be, and I therefore suggest that a modest bellowing by the right hon. Gentleman will suffice.

Alun Cairns: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can point out to the hon. Lady that not only was the document itself shared with the Welsh Government before publication, but—I would say, probably more importantly—as the document was being drafted, various extracts were shared with the Welsh Government and their input during the drafting stages contributed to the document in its totality.

Christina Rees: It is not good enough. The Secretary of State knows the terms of the JMC, which state that the UK Government will work with the devolved Administrations
“to agree a UK approach to…Article 50 negotiations”.
After two years of broken promises on Brexit talks, who should the people of Wales blame for the contempt shown to them—the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales or both?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady is ignoring that we shared the drafting of the document with the Welsh Government before we had concluded the document itself. They had an integral part in contributing and sharing their views. I would also say that it was considered at length at the JMC that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chaired days before the document was shared.

Welsh Guards: Afghanistan

Kwasi Kwarteng: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the Welsh Guards’ tour of Afghanistan.

Alun Cairns: I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence about the armed forces in Wales, including about my recent visit to Kabul to meet the Welsh Guards. During the visit, I saw at first hand the important role that our servicemen and women play in the UK’s operations, and I pay tribute to them.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of an added commitment from the Welsh Guards to secure and to help NATO’s capacity-building mission in Afghanistan?

Alun Cairns: Having seen the Welsh Guards in action in Afghanistan, I have nothing but admiration and respect for the work that they do. The additional support to help them embed and the important steps they are taking to support the ongoing work of the Afghan Government will be extremely important, and I pay tribute to them for the work that they do.

Universal Credit

Hywel Williams: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the roll-out of universal credit in Wales.

Stuart Andrew: Universal credit is already operating in 24 jobcentres across Wales, with a further two scheduled to roll out this month. The number of people receiving universal credit in Wales is over 44,000, and 36% of these are in employment. Wales jobcentres are in the latter part of the roll-out schedule, with full roll-out to be completed by the end of this year.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that answer. Early indications show that there are huge problems in implementing universal credit, with the Flintshire citizens advice bureau, for example, receiving 340 new cases—serious cases. What is he doing to make sure that our hard-pressed citizens advice bureaux are not overwhelmed when universal credit is fully implemented?

Stuart Andrew: It is important to recognise that universal credit is a transformational benefits system that is working to get people back into work. The recent employment figures, showing that employment in Wales is up by 5,000, are a significant step, but the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are exactly why we have been careful. We have made significant changes as we have carefully rolled out the project.

Transport Infrastructure: North Wales

Chris Matheson: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on upgrades to transport infrastructure in North Wales.

Stuart Andrew: The Secretary of State and I hold regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the Welsh Government on Wales and road infrastructure, and we recognise the benefit to communities on both sides of the border.

Chris Matheson: The M56 is the main arterial route not just through Cheshire but into north Wales. What discussions has the Minister had about upgrading the M56 as part of the next road investment strategy for Highways England?

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the M56 and the whole of the cross-border connectivity routes, because the amount of people who live in Wales but work in England is significant. That is why the Secretary of State recently met the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), to discuss these issues—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. These matters are of the utmost importance to the people of north Wales, and the question and the answer must be heard.

Albert Owen: My daughter, Fiona, celebrates her birthday today, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and the late, great Nelson Mandela, who would have been 100 today.
The north Wales economy depends on the port of Holyhead as the main port from the Republic of Ireland. Many businesses are concerned about a no deal Brexit scenario. Will the Minister tell us whether there is a contingency plan for a no deal and if not, why not?

Stuart Andrew: First, may I wish the hon. Gentleman’s daughter a very happy birthday?
As an Anglesey boy myself, I know how important the port of Holyhead is not just to the Isle of Anglesey but to the whole of north Wales and the whole of the country. That is exactly why this Government are working closely with ports around the whole country as we prepare for our exit from the European Union.

Cross-border Transport Links

Kevin Foster: What assessment his Department has made of the (a) adequacy of cross-border transport links to and from Wales and (b) effect of those links on economic growth.

Stuart Andrew: Abolishing the Severn tolls will drive the biggest economic stimulus Wales has seen in decades and create the most natural cross-border economic growth corridor, spanning Cardiff through to Bristol and Newport. The UK Government are looking at the capacity and investment needed for roads in the south-west of England once the tolls are abolished.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. The value of removing those tolls to the economies of both south Wales and south-west England cannot be overestimated. What, in his assessment, would be the impact on economic growth of removing those tolls on the bridge?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a significant announcement. The fact that people will be able to cross the border between Wales and England and not have to pay a toll will, we hope, increase economic activity and improve the number of people who enjoy tourism in both the south-west and Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Alison Thewliss: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 18 July.

Theresa May: Today marks 100 years since the birth of Nelson Mandela. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to his extraordinary life and agree that his message of forgiveness, peace and reconciliation is as relevant today as it ever has been.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Alison Thewliss: I am proud to have Nelson Mandela Place in my constituency, and we celebrate that today as well.
There were 934 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy, and a preventable one at that. Drug laws are reserved to  Westminster. How many more families is the Prime Minister willing to devastate before she will allow Glasgow to get on with the work of building a drug consumption room to save lives?

Theresa May: I agree with the hon. Lady that each death due to drugs is a tragedy, and I am sure that every Member of this House will have known people in their own constituency who have gone through that terrible suffering when they have lost members of their family. There is no legal framework for the provision of drug consumption rooms in the UK and we have no plans to introduce them. A range of offences is likely to be committed in the operation of drug consumption rooms. It is for local police forces to enforce the law in such circumstances and we would expect them to do so, but our approach on drugs remains very clear: we must prevent drug use in our communities and support people dependent on drugs through treatment and recovery.

Andrea Jenkyns: Could the Prime Minister inform the House at what point it was decided that Brexit means remain?

Theresa May: At absolutely no point, because Brexit continues to mean Brexit. I know that my hon. Friend wants us to talk about the positives of Brexit and I agree with her: we should be talking about the positive future for this country. I understand that she has also criticised me for looking for a solution that is “workable”. I have to say, I disagree with her on that. I think what we need is a solution that is going to work for the United Kingdom, ensure that we leave the European Union and embrace that bright future that we both agree on.

Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, pay tribute to Nelson Mandela on the centenary of his birth. The people of South Africa stood up against the most vile injustice of apartheid. Their solidarity and the solidarity of people around the world freed him and ended the scourge of apartheid. We should pay tribute to all of them on this day.
People are losing trust in this Government. The Transport Secretary, the International Trade Secretary and the Brexit Secretary were all members of the Vote Leave campaign committee. The Environment Secretary was the co-chair. They have been referred to the police by the Electoral Commission, having refused to co-operate with the Electoral Commission. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that her Cabinet Ministers will fully co-operate with the police investigation?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I actually question the way in which he put his question. He has made an accusation in this House against Members of this House—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The question was heard and the Prime Minister’s answer must be heard.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has made an accusation in this House against individual Members of this House and of the Government, and I suggest that, when he stands up, he reflects on whether or not it was correct to do so. The Electoral Commission is an independent regulator, accountable to Parliament,  not to the Government. It has, as we know, taken steps in relation to the Vote Leave campaign. I would expect that all those involved and required to do so will give the evidence that is required and respond appropriately to any questions that are raised with them. But I say again to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he should stand up, think very carefully about making accusations about individual Members, and withdraw.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. People can rant from a sedentary position for as long as they like. It will not change the way proceedings are conducted in this session. The Prime Minister’s answers will be heard and the questions from the right hon. Gentleman will be heard, and no amount of orchestrated barracking will change that fact this day or any other.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I stated the fact that the Electoral Commission has made that reference. That is what I said. I asked the Prime Minister for a guarantee that her Ministers will co-operate with the police on any investigations that they may make. That is not judgmental—it is a guarantee they will co-operate. These are serious issues. Current Cabinet Ministers were indeed central to the Vote Leave campaign. After two years of dither and delay, the Government have sunk into a mire of chaos and division. The agreement that was supposed to unite the Cabinet led to the Cabinet falling apart within 48 hours, and on Monday the Government U-turned to make their own White Paper proposals unlawful. Given that the proposals in the White Paper are now obsolete, when will the new White Paper be published?

Theresa May: I heard the right hon. Gentleman say in his first question that members of the Government had failed to co-operate with the Electoral Commission investigation. I say again that he should withdraw that. It is very important in this country that politicians do not interfere with police investigations, that the police are allowed to do their investigation and that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I still contend that he made accusations against individual members of the Government that were unjustified and he should withdraw them.
The right hon. Gentleman then came to the amendments that the Government accepted to the customs Bill on Monday night. I will explain the position to the House. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We are less than a third of the way through—possibly significantly less—and people are becoming over-excited. They must calm themselves and we must hear the Prime Minister.

Theresa May: The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said, “This will be interesting”. I will go through each of the amendments in turn for the purposes of the House. Amendment 72 related to parliamentary scrutiny on plans under clause 31 to form a customs union with the EU. We are going to leave the customs union with the EU so we accepted that enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 73 related to regulations on the application of VAT in certain circumstances. Such an  arrangement is not part of the White Paper and the Chequers agreement, and we were able to accept that too. New clause 37 was to prevent a customs border down the Irish sea. That is Government policy. New clause 36 related to reciprocity and accounting for tariffs collected, and that concept is in the White Paper. The Chequers agreement and White Paper are the basis of our negotiations with the European Union, and we have already started those negotiations.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is all very interesting, but could the Prime Minister explain why the Defence Minister had to rebel against the Government in order to support the Cabinet’s position of a few days before? The Government are in complete chaos. The centrepiece of the White Paper was something called the “facilitated customs arrangement”. Having spent a week trying to convince their own MPs that this cobbled-together mishmash was worth defending, they abandoned it. So what is their plan now for customs?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have not abandoned the facilitated customs agreement. We are discussing it with the European Union.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect 27 member states of the EU to establish their own bureaucratic tariff-collection infrastructure just to satisfy the war within the Conservative party in Britain? On Monday evening, the new Brexit Secretary was starting the next round of Brexit negotiations. No wonder he didn’t turn up—he doesn’t know what he is supposed to be negotiating. Two years on from the referendum and 16 months on from triggering article 50, is it not the case that the Government have no serious negotiating strategy?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong in his interpretation of what is happening. I have a copy of the White Paper here and I am very happy to ensure he gets a copy after these PMQs so that he can perhaps read it and understand what the Government are doing. There are indeed differences between the Leader of the Opposition and me on this issue. I will end free movement; he wants to keep it. I want us out of the customs union; he wants us in. I want us out of the single market; he wants us in. I want us to sign our own trade deals; he wants to hand them over to Brussels. I have ruled out a second referendum; he won’t. There is no doubt which of us is respecting the will of the British people and delivering on the vote, and it is not him.

Jeremy Corbyn: We are 11 days on from the so-called Chequers agreement, and the Brexit White Paper did not even survive contact with the Cabinet or the Tory Back Benches, and has not yet even been discussed with the EU. The White Paper states:
“The UK is committed to membership of the European Convention on Human Rights”.
Is the new Brexit Secretary signed up to that?

Theresa May: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are signed up to that: it was in our manifesto. Let me also say to him that he has stood up and asked virtually the same question, and obviously  has not listened to any of the answers that I have given him. The point of this is not that you just read out the question you thought of on Tuesday morning, but you actually listen to the answers that the Prime Minister gives.
The Chequers agreement stands. The White Paper stands. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had not even discussed the White Paper with the European Union. I think I have told him in at least two if not three answers that we are already discussing it with the European Union.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister obviously forgot the question that I just asked her, which was about the Brexit Secretary’s support or otherwise for the European convention on human rights. He is on record as saying:
“I don’t support the Human Rights Act and I don’t believe in economic and social rights”.
He is obviously backsliding to keep his job, or that is the new policy of the Government.
With only three months to go until the final withdrawal agreement is due to be signed, the former Brexit Secretary has resigned, the White Paper is in tatters, and the new Brexit Secretary is skipping negotiations. After two years of negotiating with themselves, the Government wanted to shut down Parliament five days early. They have even given up on negotiating with each other. Is it not the case that the Government are failing to negotiate Brexit and failing to meet the needs of the—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I know what the attempt is, and it is not going to work. The right hon. Gentleman will complete his question. He will not be shouted down, not today and not any day. Learn it: it is quite simple.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Is it not the case that the Government are failing to negotiate Brexit and failing to meet the needs of the country because they are too busy—far too busy—fighting each other?

Theresa May: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have been doing over the last week, and let me also look at what the right hon. Gentleman has been doing over the last week. While I was agreeing the future of NATO with President Trump—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Lewis, you are a very over-excitable denizen of the House. You are not as well behaved as your little baby daughter.

Theresa May: While I was agreeing the future of NATO with President Trump, the right hon. Gentleman was joining a protest march against him. While I was delivering a plan for our future trade with the EU, he was delivering a plan to teach children how to go on strike. While I was negotiating our future security relationship with Europe, he was renegotiating the definition of anti-Semitism. He protests; I deliver.

More!

John Bercow: There will indeed be more. Helen Whately.

Helen Whately: Thirty-one member countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance have an agreed definition  of anti-Semitism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all political parties should adopt that definition, and its examples, without amendments or omissions?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend that all political parties should do just that. The Conservative party has done that, but sadly the Labour party does not agree. The Labour party is trying to redefine anti-Semitism to allow people to say that Israel is a racist endeavour. The Chief Rabbi says that what the Labour party is doing is sending
“an unprecedented message of contempt”
for British Jews. Even some of the right hon. Gentleman’s own MPs are saying that this is anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is racism. The Labour party should accept that. The right hon. Gentleman should accept that. We should all sign up, as the Conservative party has, to the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and all its annexes.

Ian Blackford: We should all welcome the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nelson Mandela. Those of us in Scotland are very proud that the city of Glasgow was the first in the world to give the freedom of a city to Nelson Mandela, something of which he in turn was also proud.
This week the Prime Minister caved in to her right-wing Brexiteers, undermining her negotiating position with the EU. In her attempt to hold together her fractured party, she has managed to unite the country against this Government. Playing fast and loose with her own position makes the UK a laughing stock with our negotiating partners. The Prime Minister has put her narrow party interest before that of the country. Is it not the case that the events of this week make a no deal much more likely?

Theresa May: As I explained in answer to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition, we are negotiating with the European Union on the basis of the Chequers agreement and the White Paper. Those discussions started this week and have been continuing this week. The right hon. Gentleman talks about putting a political party’s interests before that of the country. I think the Scottish National party should really think about what it is doing when it promotes the independence of Scotland, which is clearly against the interests of its country.

Ian Blackford: The reality is that this is a Prime Minister who has lost control of her own party, a Prime Minister who is in office but not in power, and a Parliament that is so divided that it simply cannot function. Mr Speaker, to use a good Gaelic word, it is a bùrach. We cannot crash out of the EU without a deal. We need to think of the next generation, who will pay a price for this folly. They will see lost opportunities and lost jobs. Did the Prime Minister come into Parliament to have this as her legacy? Will she now face up to the reality and extend article 50?

Theresa May: No.

David Davies: The Prime Minister’s proposals offer a practical and reasoned way to deliver Brexit. Does she agree that it is high time that Labour MPs, and, yes, some  Conservatives, stop the fear-mongering, get behind their country and support the Prime Minister as she leads us out of the European Union?

Theresa May: There are strong feelings around the whole House on this issue, but what we need is a deal that is credible and workable, protects jobs and protects our precious Union, and delivers on the result of the referendum. That is exactly what we are doing with the Chequers agreement. It allows the UK to leave the European Union, and to take back control of our money, laws and borders. That is what our plan delivers. As my hon. Friend says, let us work together and deliver for the British people.

Rosie Cooper: If I may, in relation to ongoing matters—

John Bercow: Order. This is extremely serious and it will be heard.

Rosie Cooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In relation to ongoing matters, may I, on a personal note, thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and every single Member of this House for the kindness they have shown me?
I am delighted to be in my place to be able to ask the Prime Minister a question. So, to the question—to business. Does the Prime Minister agree that, as part of the Government’s attempt to expand capacity in the NHS, existing sites such as Ormskirk hospital in my constituency, where there is capacity to build an extra floor, should be prioritised for expansion ahead of simply building a new hospital at much greater cost, depriving the NHS of much needed investment which should go into patients and staffing?

Theresa May: First, may I say to the hon. Lady how very good it is to see her in her place in this House? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] And I know from the response that that view is shared across the whole of this House.
The hon. Lady raised an issue to do with the NHS and Ormskirk hospital. As she will know, we are putting that extra funding into the national health service: £20 billion a year in real terms by 2023-24. We will have funding available not just to build sites but, as she says, to improve current and existing facilities across the country. On Ormskirk hospital, I understand the Northern England Clinical Senate has issued a report making proposals around the provision of emergency services there. No decisions have been made—that is a matter, of course, for the NHS—but as we look to the long-term plan, I want NHS clinicians to come forward with the best proposals for patients and to take account of local interests such as those the hon. Lady has raised.

Chris Philp: Around the world Christians are facing a rising tide of persecution and violence. Does the Prime Minister share my concern at this trend and at particular cases such as those of Sunil Saleem, a Christian man who was beaten to death at a hospital in Lahore in Pakistan, or 33 women in Eritrea who were imprisoned simply for praying? In this country we rightly protect religious  freedoms; will my right hon. Friend step up efforts to get other countries to similarly respect religious freedoms?

Theresa May: As a Government we stand with persecuted Christians all over the world and will continue to support them. It is hard to comprehend that today we still see people being attacked and murdered because of their Christianity, but we must reaffirm our determination to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions and beliefs and for them to be able to practise their beliefs in peace and security. I am very pleased that I have been able to appoint the noble Lord Ahmad as the Government’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, and he will certainly be doing what my hon. Friend suggests: working with other countries to encourage them to recognise the importance of allowing people to have the freedom to practise their religion and beliefs in peace and security.

David Drew: In view of the fact that schools in the Stroud constituency are telling me they are forced to use core funding  to cover the additional requirements of special educational needs and that special schools in the constituency are having to meet considerable rising costs, will the Prime Minister look at the national funding formula with the aim of helping those schools, to make sure they are fully inclusive and that we help those who are most vulnerable because of their special needs?

Theresa May: I have long championed the need for children with special needs to be able to be provided for in the setting that is most appropriate for them. For some that will be a mainstream school, for some it will be a special needs school. We have of course changed the national funding formula to make it a fairer distribution across the country, but, as I have said, I recognise the need to ensure that children with special needs are provided for in the most appropriate setting.

Luke Graham: The establishment of a spaceport in Scotland will give the UK the capability to launch satellites from British soil for the first time ever. Considering the opportunities presented by space and aerospace, will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss more investment for Scotland, in particular the Kinross aerospace centre in my constituency that is being proposed as part of the Tay cities deal?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue; it is absolutely right of him to highlight the opportunities that our announcement on spaceports give us. We have awarded grants worth £31.5 million to enable satellites to be launched from UK soil for the first time, and that is worth a potential £3.8 billion over the next decade to the UK economy. This is the start of a new space age in the UK; it is a huge boost to our world-leading space sector, making the UK a one-stop shop for new satellite services. My hon. Friend has put a bid in for his own constituency in this regard, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will be happy to meet him and discuss that.

Sharon Hodgson: The Bunny Hill and Washington urgent care centres in my constituency, and the Houghton urgent care centre in my neighbouring constituency, are under threat of closure by the Sunderland clinical commissioning group. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister just to say that these are simply local decisions, because local people certainly do not want those closures. What will she say to my constituents who rely on those vital urgent care centres, and to the staff at Sunderland Royal A&E who are going to have to deal with the aftermath of the closures?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady complains to me that we want decisions to be taken at local level by the NHS, but I believe it is absolutely right that decisions are taken at local level. When the NHS takes those decisions, the important thing is that it puts the interests of patients, the safety of patients and the treatment of patients first. She has raised this particular issue, and I continue to believe that it is right not for politicians here to make a decision like that but for actual clinicians and others working in the national health service to do so.

Marcus Jones: I celebrated the 70th birthday of our NHS with patients and the fabulous staff at the Oakwood day mental health hospital in Nuneaton. Mental health has always been the Cinderella of the NHS. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking our doctors and nurses who work in mental health, and will she say what more we can do to improve mental health and what resources the Government will put into that?

Theresa May: I join my hon. Friend in commending the work that is done by all our dedicated staff in the national health service. They continue to do that wonderful work with considerable commitment and dedication. He is right to say that mental health is important. It has been overlooked for too long, and that is why this Government have been putting a focus on mental health. We have been doing more, but there is more to be done. We are putting more money in, and we have announced a new package of measures backed by £6 million in funding, which includes rapid access to mental health services and support for children and their whole families where there is a dependent drinker. Spending overall on mental health issues is at record levels and growing, with a planned record £11.86 billion for 2017-18, increasing by a further £1 billion by 2020-21. It is right that we put this important focus on mental health, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this.

John Woodcock: My extraordinary constituents help to keep the nation’s lights on, and they keep us safe by building the Royal Navy’s submarines. They deserve a train service that is worthy of the name, so will the Prime Minister get a personal grip on this fiasco? Just this weekend, we saw 170 services cancelled across the Northern network because there was a World cup game on.

Theresa May: Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that constituents deserve a rail service that provides for them and their needs. I recognise the problems that have been experienced on Northern, and of course on  Govia Thameslink as well. We have given unprecedented powers and funding to Transport for the North, but the issue that he raises in relation to the World cup was one that affected other train services as well, because of the way in which many services operate, and their requirements for drivers and their relying on volunteers to turn up at weekends. This experience may very well be one that the train operators will want to look at, to ensure that in future they can provide the services that constituents need.

David Davis: As the Prime Minister is aware, the Department for Exiting the European Union carried out a study of all the previous free trade deals that the European Union had done, in order to create a draft free trade deal that was based solely on European precedent. The Department was—until I left, at least—creating a legal text of such a draft treaty as a fall-back option for the current negotiations. Will she agree to publish that text when it is complete?

Theresa May: First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he did as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Secondly, as he knows, we have published the proposals that we have for the future trade relationship with the European Union. Of course, as we look through those negotiations, we will be looking to see where the European Union has entered into certain agreements with others in the past. Very often, the European Commission will say, “X can’t be done,” only for us to say, “X was done with another country and therefore it is possible for it to be done with us.” But what I want to see is not just an amalgam of those free trade agreements but an ambitious plan—which is what I believe we have produced—that will protect jobs in this country, deliver on the referendum result and, crucially, ensure that we have no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

Alan Whitehead: The largest apprenticeship provider in Southampton recently reported to me that he has suffered a 70% drop in apprentices on his books since the introduction of the levy-based apprenticeship system. That accords with figures from other providers in my area and means that hundreds of young people will now not get the apprenticeships they need. What is the Prime Minister doing to get the disastrous roll-out of the levy-based apprenticeship system back on the road?

Theresa May: What we have seen since the apprenticeship levy was introduced is a change in the number of people doing apprenticeships, but we have also seen an increase in the quality of the apprenticeships that are being undertaken. The Government are now looking at how the levy is operating to ensure that we can do what I want to do, which is ensure that every young person has the opportunity to pursue the course, be it of education or training, that is right for them and that is going to give them the best start in life.

Keith Simpson: My right hon. Friend should be commended for her sangfroid a week ago in dealing with a giant ego—somebody who believes that truth is fake news and leaks continually. I am not  referring here to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson); I am of course referring to President Trump, who has acted in a very bizarre way over intelligence. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has to work with him, but is she not alarmed at the way in which he refused to challenge President Putin over the Russian activity that recently resulted in the death of a woman here in Salisbury?

Theresa May: I understand that there have been some clarifications of some of the statements that President Trump made. I did raise with President Trump the incident in Salisbury and the fact that we have seen somebody die here in the UK as a result of contact with a nerve agent. Of course, we took immediate action at the time after the Salisbury attack when we had been able to attribute it to Russia. The United States stood alongside us, as did many other nations across the world, and took action against Russia, which showed a united international front that sent a clear message that we will not accept this behaviour, that this is not behaviour that Russia can conduct with impunity and that we will continue to act together.

Dan Carden: Carillion forecast an £83 million loss on the Liverpool Royal Hospital, and physical cracks now exist in the structure’s concrete beams. It is 16 months late, over budget and structurally unsound, but the answer to my question in the Prime Minister’s absence last week offered no solutions. Will she now take responsibility for finishing and opening the new Royal and guarantee that the spiralling costs will not fall to the hospital trust, which would cut the budget for patient care in Liverpool for decades to come?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raised this in my absence last week, so he will know that we are supporting the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust in its work on this, and we want to see the new hospital built as quickly as possible while securing best value for money in doing so. The Government and the trust continue to be in active discussions with the existing private sector funders to see whether there is a way forward to complete the remaining work on the hospital. It has taken longer, and further issues were uncovered during the process, but the way that we are approaching the situation is the right way to ensure that we are clear about what we are dealing with. We want to make the right decisions, and it is right that those discussions continue.

Steven Baker: It is in the national interest that we should have, and have implemented, contingency plans for the unwanted eventuality of exiting the European Union with nothing agreed. Now there is collective agreement to accelerate the delivery of our plans, will my right hon. Friend please give instructions that every communication related to no deal serves to bolster our negotiating position by reinforcing the credibility and feasibility of those contingency plans?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend also for the work he was doing in the Department for Exiting the European Union, and particularly for the work he was doing on this issue. He is absolutely right that we  need to make sure that we have those no deal preparations in place while we negotiate with the European Union on a deal, because we need to ensure that we have made contingency arrangements for every eventuality. Also, the European Union needs to be in no doubt that we are making those preparations and are ensuring that, should that be the outcome, we are prepared.

Alex Cunningham: My constituent Andy McLean arranged to sell his house to an online company, WeBuyAnyHouse-Quickly.com. He agreed a price and then saw it cut by more than 20% on the day contracts were to be exchanged and after he had incurred a fortune in deposit, legal and other costs associated with his new house purchase. Will the Prime Minister instruct Ministers to bring forward regulations so that people like my constituent can be protected from such rip-off companies and their cowboy tactics?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises a very specific issue, and I am happy to ensure that the responsible Ministers will look at that issue.

Hugo Swire: For a Minister to be able to do their job, they rely on getting impartial, sound and honest advice from their civil servants. When that sacrosanct relationship is broken, there needs to be a full and proper investigation. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has called for the full, open and transparent publication of Sir Alex Allan’s Windrush report. Will my right hon. Friend therefore use her stamp of authority as Prime Minister and insist that we get to the bottom of this and see who was told what and when in order that it does not look like another cover-up?

Theresa May: It is important, as Alex Allan himself has made clear, that proper consideration is given to the publication of information involving individuals’ personal information, but I know my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering this matter very carefully.

Nigel Dodds: I commend the work of the charities Shine and SBH Scotland for their work in assisting people affected by spina bifida and other such conditions. Those charities, public health authorities, scientists and others all agree on the need to reduce the number of pregnancies that have neural tube defects by the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid—the USA and other countries do that already. Will the Prime Minister look at bringing the UK into line by introducing this very important public health preventive action?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I join him in commending the excellent work those charities are doing on this issue. We all want mums-to-be to have healthy pregnancies and, of course, there is NHS guidance on the supplements, such as folic acid, that women planning a pregnancy should take before conception and, indeed, until the twelfth week of pregnancy. Women are recommended to eat more folate-rich foods during pregnancy. We will continue to look at this issue to ensure that the advice and the action that is taken are absolutely right to ensure that mums-to-be have healthy pregnancies.

Anna Soubry: I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating Sir Cliff Richard on his successful action against the BBC, which behaved atrociously in its illegal invasion of his privacy. Will my right hon. Friend look again at changing the law so that a suspect is not named by the media, except in exceptional cases, until such time as they are charged? I know I am off her Christmas card list, but I have tabled a private Member’s Bill that commands cross-party and, I think, widespread support—I am more than happy to call it Cliff’s law. Will the Prime Minister please agree at least to look at the Bill, because Sir Cliff is not alone and this is not confined to sexual offences? Suspects should not be named by the media until such time as they are charged.

Theresa May: Obviously, my right hon. Friend has raised a very important issue. She has raised it in the specific case of Sir Cliff Richard, but, as she said, this does not just relate to somebody who is well known and in the public eye. This is a difficult issue, it has to be dealt with sensitively and I looked at it when I was Home Secretary. There may well be cases where the publication of a name enables other victims to come forward and therefore to strengthen the case against an individual. So this is not somewhere where we either do all of one or all of another; it is an issue for careful judgment. But in exercising that careful judgment, the police have to recognise their responsibilities and the media need to recognise their responsibilities as well.

John Bercow: It is good to welcome the hon. Lady back to the House; I call Naz Shah.

Naseem Shah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Saturday, we had the international day of remembrance for victims of honour abuse. This Friday, it will be two years to the day since the rape and murder of my constituent Samia Shahid, who was lured to Pakistan. I thank colleagues in the House, and, in particular, the leader of my party, for showing solidarity with the #honourher campaign today. Will the Prime Minister once again reiterate our commitment to eradicating violence against women and girls? Will she also urge the Pakistani authorities to give justice to Samia Shahid—two years on we are still waiting for a trial?

Theresa May: The Foreign Office is aware of the particular case and the issue the hon. Lady has raised in relation to the Pakistani authorities, but I am happy to reconfirm our absolute commitment to work to eradicate violence against women. The term “honour violence” is such a misnomer; this is an appalling crime of violence against women. We should all be working to ensure that we eradicate it.

Huw Merriman: Neuroblastoma is an aggressive form of cancer that impacts 100 children each year, most of whom are  under five. Thanks to a campaign involving my constituents the Jeffreys family, and many hon. Members from across this House, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has now approved a drug that may extend lives. Tragically for my five-year-old constituent Jack Jeffreys this has come too late, and he is now undergoing palliative care, with his family at his bedside. For his legacy, and for all of those other children who could lead longer lives, may I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that the NHS now commissions and uses this drug?

Theresa May: I am sure the whole House will join me in extending our thoughts and prayers to Jack’s family at what must be a terribly, terribly difficult and tragic time for them. As my hon. Friend has indicated, NICE has recommended the drug that he refers to for use in children; that was in draft guidance it recently issued. I understand the drug is now available across the NHS, through the cancer drugs fund, and NICE will be publishing its final guidance in August. I am sure the drug will be rolled out swiftly to ensure that as many people as possible are able to benefit from it as swiftly as possible.

John Bercow: Three days after she became the proud grandmother of Holly, I call the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.

Harriet Harman: Last night’s shambles over the vote of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) should put it beyond doubt that pairing is not the answer for MPs having babies. We are elected as MPs to vote in this House, and MPs having babies should not lose that right. Will the Prime Minister give the House the opportunity to vote on the Procedure Committee draft motion on proxy voting for baby leave? With more parliamentary babies in the pipeline—there is one right next to me—and more crucial votes coming up, it is time to sort this out. This one is overdue.

Theresa May: First, may I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that the breaking of the pair was done in error? It was not good enough and it will not be repeated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and the Chief Whip have apologised directly to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, because we take pairing very seriously and we recognise its value to Parliament. We will continue to guarantee a pair for MPs who are currently pregnant or who have a newborn baby. The issue the right hon. and learned Lady raises refers also to this question of proxy voting and the report the Procedure Committee has brought out. We are looking very carefully at that issue. We want to ensure that we can facilitate parental leave in this place, but, obviously, we also have to ensure that there is a proper consultation. We are looking at the interests of not only individuals, but the whole House.

GOVIA THAMESLINK FRANCHISE

Andy McDonald: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to update the House on the performance of the Govia Thameslink franchise.

Jo Johnson: The shadow Transport Secretary has requested an update on the Govia Thameslink franchise. The Secretary of State and I have been clear that the way that the timetable was implemented by GTR and Network Rail from 20 May provided an unacceptable level of service for passengers. The industry as a whole has apologised to passengers for the disruption suffered on Thameslink and Great Northern services.
I can inform the House that, on Sunday 15 July, GTR implemented an interim timetable, a planned step that aims to improve the reliability and performance of services for passengers. The Department is, of course, watching performance carefully. Some of the benefits that passengers are now seeing include: more trains—around 150 to 200 extra services each day; on-the-day cancellations, which are extremely frustrating for passengers, have been significantly reduced; passengers no longer need to check journey planners before they travel; and the public performance measure has improved on Thameslink, closing yesterday at 84% and at 86% on Great Northern. However, as I said, the Department is closely monitoring for sustained performance improvements by GTR, and we will be holding it and its new chief executive officer to account. At the same time, the Department has been working hard to make sure that passengers receive compensation and an explanation for the disruption that they have suffered.
The worst affected Thameslink and Great Northern season ticket passengers will be able to claim compensation equivalent to one month of their season ticket from GTR for the disruption that they have suffered. Compensation will cover the period from 20 May to 28 July 2018. GTR will contact registered qualifying passengers by the end of August before a claims portal is opened for other passengers. That is identical to the system used for the Southern industrial action disruption compensation. This is in addition to the standard Delay Repay compensation to which GTR passengers are entitled after any 15-minute delay. Full details of eligible stations and more information can be found on the Thameslink and Great Northern websites.
The Department has commissioned two reviews of what went wrong with the implementation of the May timetable. First, the independent Glaister review is under way and seeks to understand the factors that led to the disruption. Our aim is to make sure that we learn lessons so that this does not happen again. Within the Department, we have also started a hard review of this franchise to establish whether GTR has met and continues to meet its contractual obligations in the planning and delivery of the May timetable. As part of that process, we are looking at whether GTR has breached its contracts and we will not hesitate to take tough action against it if it is found to have been at fault.
We are still in the first days of the interim timetable on GTR and all timetables require time to bed in. My Department is watching GTR’s progress carefully and we want to see a continued increase in performance for passengers.

Andy McDonald: It is disappointing that the Secretary of State has had to be summoned here to update the House on the ongoing calamity that is the GTR rail contract, and it just a shame that he has not turned up—yet again.
For four years, Govia’s appalling service and performance have wreaked havoc and misery in the lives of millions of people. What have the Government done to hold the company to account? Precisely nothing. What does this disgraceful company have to do to be stripped of its contact?
GTR’s new interim timetable introduced on Sunday—its third in two months—was supposed to provide more certainty for the public, yet the disruption, delays and disaster are worse than ever. We learned this morning from ITV News that GTR underestimated the scale of the disruption caused by the timetable change by a factor of 10. This failure is totally unacceptable. Labour says that enough is enough. The Government must stop pussyfooting around and strip Govia of its contract without delay. There is no need to wait for Stephen Glaister’s review of the timetabling chaos, as the Minister says, as it will not tell us what we do not know today. The Government and the rail industry have failed passengers both on GTR and across the north of England.
The Government’s threats to GTR mean nothing. Members of this House and the public are not reassured. Can the Minister tell the House whether GTR is in breach of its contractual obligations with the Department for Transport? If it is, will he remove the contract from the company?
The Government have already done a sweetheart deal with GTR over compensation. Can the Minister confirm who will pay for the compensation promised to passengers? Will it be the company or taxpayers?
Almost a year ago, the Government announced major rail investment cancellations on the last sitting day, thereby avoiding parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions. Perhaps the Minister could give the House some notice today of any cuts to transport investment that he plans to sneak out on the sly before or during the summer recess?

Jo Johnson: The Secretary of State would have been here had he not been at the Farnborough air show, which is a long-standing commitment that has been in his diary for a considerable time. I understand that he was on an aeroplane at the time the urgent request came in, and it was simply not practical for him to make arrangements to be back in the Chamber to answer this urgent question.
Let me turn to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. We will establish during the hard review whether GTR has been in breach of its contractual obligations. That process is under way. It is important that the Department follows due process in all these matters. He asked who will pay compensation. The compensation that I described—a month’s cash compensation for passengers on the most severely affected lines—will be predominantly funded by Govia Thameslink Railway. That is important, as it is the private sector operator of this train company and it will be providing the predominant amount of compensation.

Nicholas Soames: Against the background of a truly deplorable few months for my constituents in East Grinstead, Haywards Heath and  Wivelsfield, the new timetable is beginning to bed down and provide a far more reliable and sustainable service, which is quite the opposite of what has been portrayed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and greatly welcomed by my constituents. Will the Minister please continue to impress on the operator that the short-formed trains are really unacceptable and that we need to get back to the full-length trains as soon as we possibly can?

Jo Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising that there has been some progress and that that has started to benefit his constituents. Obviously, we want that to continue and for that improvement to accelerate. We recognise that ensuring that there are fewer short formations, indeed no short formations, will be a very important part of that process.

Alan Brown: Quite simply, the Secretary of State’s handling of the rail franchise and the rail operations makes Brexit seem like an organised process. It really is a disgrace. What needs to happen before a company is stripped of a franchise? It is certainly not poor performance. Owing the taxpayer £2 billion and the Government cannot wait to step in and take it off the private operator’s hands, but for poor performance, no; they just stand back and do nothing. What action has the Government actually been taking to sort out this mess with Govia Thameslink? As the shadow Secretary of State said, we are now on the third timetable. There have been 420-odd cancellations when it had anticipated 40, which shows what lack of a grip Govia has on this matter. Can the Minister confirm whether Govia is still in the running for the Southeastern franchise, and if so, why? How much compensation has been set aside by Network Rail, which is owned by taxpayers and is not a private company? I would like to ask when the Secretary of State will lead in these matters, but the true question is when will the Secretary of State resign because of these matters?

Jo Johnson: The Department’s top priority is to ensure that passenger services across GTR get back to the standard where they need to be. The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation; it is being predominantly funded by GTR, which will not receive payments that it would otherwise have received for delivering the timetable. Network Rail will make a contribution towards the cost of compensation, recognising that it too played a part in the disruption experienced by passengers. Our rail industry is in both public and private hands, so it is appropriate that both parts contribute to the important compensation that passengers will receive.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend will recall the assurance given to me by the Prime Minister that
“nothing is off the table”—[Official Report, 4 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 313.]
if the interim timetable fails. He is monitoring GTR’s performance carefully, but so far this week it has been less good on the Cambridge line than in some other parts. Will he continue to put pressure on GTR for a proper service for my constituents, who have suffered so  badly over recent weeks? Will he also look into compensation for carnet holders as well as season-ticket holders?

Jo Johnson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for recognising that there has been improvement, even if it has not been consistent across all parts of the GTR network. We particularly want to see an even higher standard of service on Great Northern, which serves his constituency, than there has been. Performance overall has been improving: as I said, yesterday the PPMs on Thameslink were at 84% and at 86% on Great Northern. There have been some operational difficulties today due to a signalling failure, which is a Network Rail responsibility. As part of our work with GTR, we are ensuring that it pays particular attention to areas such as that of my right hon. and learned Friend where there has been poorer performance than that across the rest of the GTR franchise as a whole.

Lilian Greenwood: GTR’s third attempt since May to implement a more robust and reliable timetable has been met with understandable incredulity by those passengers who are still experiencing more cancelled services, more confusion and dangerously overcrowded stations and platforms. How long is the DFT prepared to prolong the ridiculous situation in which the only available option to stabilise things is to cancel more trains, causing more pain for passengers who are paying handsomely for GTR’s so-called service? If the Minister will not step in to take direct and effective action to put things right, is not the franchise in effect unfit for purpose? Does that not demonstrate the Department’s total inability to act in the best interests of passengers?

Jo Johnson: Things are improving, although they are not yet back at the level they need to be. More services are running today—150 to 200 each day—than before 15 July, as a result of the interim timetable that GTR has just implemented, and the number of on-the-day cancellations has been dramatically reduced, so the Chair of the Select Committee could give some credit to GTR for the kind of progress that we have seen since the introduction of the interim timetable on Sunday, while recognising that there is significant work still to be done.

Heidi Allen: I have to say to the Minister that on the lines in my area, which also run through Royston and St Neots stations in the constituencies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the new timetable did not go live, to all intents and purposes—most certainly not on Sunday, and we still had lots of cancellations on our lines on Monday.
I have two specific questions. First, like a lot of people I remain deeply dissatisfied that compensation is only for season-ticket holders, with other people having to use Delay Repay. What about my constituents who are having to drive to main commuter stations that they would not normally use and sometimes having to pay £9 or £10 a day to park there? They would normally be able to walk to their own village station. We need to do better on compensation, and there are a lot of us who  will not let that drop. Secondly, how long is this hard review actually going to take? We are two months in and the service is still nowhere near acceptable.

Jo Johnson: There are a number of elements to that. I recognise that services in my hon. Friend’s constituency have not been running perfectly, by any means. Some technical operational difficulties that were Network Rail’s responsibility have been at fault. There was a signal fault between Cambridge and Royston, which was a Network Rail issue, and there was a double track-circuit failure at Foxton, which was also a Network Rail issue and which has played a particular part in the difficulties that my hon. Friend’s constituents have been experiencing today.
On her point about compensation, the package has been designed to compensate the worst-affected passengers who travel every day on season tickets bought in advance. As I said, it is similar to the compensation that was offered to Southern ticket holders following the industrial action last year. Passengers who travel less frequently can claim Delay Repay compensation for the disruption that they experience, and we encourage them to do so.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady’s question, although comprehensive, was notably shorter than the delays about which she complained.

Clive Efford: I have said to the Minister in the House several times that Govia runs not only GTR but Southeastern. This morning, services were again delayed because of a broken-down train. That is not infrastructure; it is the rail operating company. Why do the Government turn a blind eye to Govia? It is not fit and proper and should have its franchises taken away.

Jo Johnson: The Department’s hard review, which is under way, is looking into GTR’s preparedness for the timetable change and will leave the Secretary of State with the full range of options, should GTR be found not to have the managerial strength or capability to be a train operating company. All options will be available to the Secretary of State at the review’s conclusion, which we hope will come by the end of this month.

Michael Fallon: First, when it comes to compensation, does my hon. Friend agree that the priority should be to improve the compensation on offer and accelerate it, so that people actually get the repayment that is being talked about? Secondly, will he tell the House how many route train drivers we are short of on the Thameslink service and when we expect to have a full complement?

Jo Johnson: GTR will be proactively contacting my right hon. Friend’s constituents when they are in the group of severely affected passengers who hold season tickets. GTR will actively get in touch with them to ensure that they get the compensation to which they are entitled. GTR has been making significant progress with driver training, which is part of the underlying problems with the disruption, and we are pleased with the progress it is making. That plays a part in ensuring that services are getting back to where they need to be.

Teresa Pearce: I listened to what the Minister said about reviewing the contract to see whether the terms had been adhered to; surely the  contract is to run a rail service and surely GTR has not done that. What other business would possibly stay in business if it had to compensate its customers on a daily basis? What will it take for this contract to be withdrawn?

Jo Johnson: The important questions that the hon. Lady raises will be answered by the Glaister review and the departmental hard review. We need to establish what responsibility GTR had for the disruption that passengers have experienced, while recognising that other actors are involved that also have a share in what has happened, including Network Rail.

Crispin Blunt: As the Opposition spokesman implied, Mr Speaker, you probably could have granted this urgent question on any day in the past four years, since the London Bridge investment work began and the timetable fell over after new year 2015. Will my hon. Friend the Minister warn the Opposition, who focus simply on the GTR franchise, that there is a complex set of overlapping responsibilities in this area that mean that a simple solution is almost certainly the wrong one? Will he and his team address the complexity of the structure that started with the privatisation of this service back in 1993? Will he do what is within his power and address the grotesque unfairnesses in some of the fare structures and significantly improve the compensation deal, so that people who access the Thameslink service get compensation as well as those who are lucky enough to go on to a Thameslink train straight away?

Jo Johnson: My hon. Friend raised the issue of the fare structure. He has been a tireless campaigner on this question on behalf of his constituents in Reigate and Redhill, and we take his concerns extremely seriously. He also made the important point that we should not leap to simplistic solutions, as the Labour party has done by thinking that there is a quick-fix answer to this in nationalisation. We have to remember that there are many actors in what has gone wrong, including Network Rail, which is, of course, in the public sector.

Tom Brake: Many commuters and campaign organisations, such as the St Albans commuter action group, will be watching this debate. They will want to know what role the Secretary of State had in choosing 15 July as the date for implementing the interim timetable. They will also want to know why, in response to a letter from the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones)—I thank her for writing that letter on behalf of MPs—the Secretary of State hid the fact that the DFT is on the industry readiness board, which has been responsible for the last two years for overseeing the introduction of the timetable. Is it not time for a performance monitoring system for Ministers, so that they can be sacked when they do not perform?

Jo Johnson: The chair of the Office of Rail and Road, Professor Stephen Glaister, is looking into what went wrong with the introduction of the timetable so that we can learn lessons from it for December and subsequent changes. The terms of reference of the review allow him to examine DFT’s role in all decisions leading up to the introduction of the May timetable. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Secretary of State’s  role in choosing 15 July for the introduction of the interim timetable. That was a decision of the operator, as I have already explained to the right hon. Gentleman in answer to a written question.

Tim Loughton: As a direct consequence of the third emergency timetable, which came in on Sunday, schools in East Worthing have had to bring forward the closing of their day by an hour because there are no longer any trains for their pupils. The punctuality rate will indeed improve, because with 100% of those trains no longer running, they are 100% punctual. What exactly will it take from the Glaister review—in addition to what thousands of our constituents tell us every single day about this shambles—to get this franchise removed once and for all, and as soon as possible? What will it take to get a proper compensation scheme that properly reflects the daily agony that our constituents are going through?

Jo Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, who have suffered unacceptably as a result of the disruption that they have experienced. It is right that the industry and the Government have apologised for everything that constituents have experienced. We are working hard to ensure that the disruption comes to an end as soon as possible, and we are ensuring that there is compensation and a proper explanation so that lessons can be learned for the future.

Marsha de Cordova: In May, GTR issued guidance to its staff instructing them to ignore the needs of disabled passengers if not doing so would cause a delay to trains. We know that that was discrimination against disabled passengers. Does the Minister agree that no rail operator should be discriminating against disabled passengers? In future, will all rail franchises ensure that all disabled passengers are treated equally?

Jo Johnson: It is entirely right that the train operating company in question apologised for that incident. No disabled passenger should be treated in such a way. We must have a fully accessible transport system. The Department will shortly launch an inclusive transport strategy, which will ensure that that is the case.

Paul Scully: I welcome the hard review into GTR, which still has a tin ear when it comes to constituents who complain about their travel on the Sutton to Wimbledon loop. I also welcome the Glaister review, which is looking at the relationship between Network Rail, GTR and the train operating companies. What more can the Minister do to bring track and train back together in smooth operation?

Jo Johnson: I refer my hon. Friend to the strategic vision for rail that the Secretary of State published in November last year. It builds on work to bring track and train closer together, so that we get the best out of the public and private sectors in a sense of partnership. That will address many of the dysfunctionalities in our present system, in which there is too much of a blame game between train operating companies and Network Rail. There is too much buck-passing, and we want to bring that to an end.

Daniel Zeichner: “Not functioning properly” is a woeful understatement of the continuing misery that passengers from Cambridge are enduring. It started with the cancellation of peak-time services on Monday morning, when people who wanted to go to Kings Cross were told that they would be better off going to Liverpool Street. The previous evening I read in the Cambridge News that people who went to see Paul Simon found themselves left in London and had to pay £150 for a cab home. GTR will forever be remembered as the great train robbery. Has the Minister got a target for GTR to meet by next week? If it does not meet the target, will he finally strip it of the franchise?

Jo Johnson: The hard review, which we have discussed this afternoon, is under way. It got going on 21 June, and it is looking carefully at the performance of the new timetable. This is early days—we are on day four of the new timetable—and it is important that we give it a bit of time to bed in before we leap to conclusions. We want to make sure that we get the processes right. Performance yesterday was significantly better than it had been prior to the introduction of the interim timetable, with public performance measures in the 80s. The PPM for Great Northern, which I believe is relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, was 86%. Some issues this morning with Network Rail performance have affected services out of Cambridge, but they are not GTR’s responsibility.

Maria Caulfield: My constituency is a Southern-only constituency, and I have seven stations. Although they are not high-volume stations like nearby Haywards Heath or Brighton, they provide people’s only public transport for getting to work and school, and visiting our coastal tourist regions. Although the PPM figures are improving, Southern passengers are still experiencing short formation, complete removal of trains from the timetable and station skipping. Why are they not getting the same compensation as Thameslink passengers?

Jo Johnson: We have focused compensation, as we did with the Southern compensation that resulted from the industrial action 18 months or so ago, on passengers who have been most severely affected. Although Southern passengers have experienced certain knock-on effects, they have not been as affected by disruption as those on the main Thameslink services and Great Northern services following the introduction of the timetable on 20 May.

Tim Farron: My constituents stand in strong solidarity with, and have great sympathy for, the passengers of Govia Thameslink. Will the Minister make a statement on Arriva Northern Rail’s now tedious and predictable ongoing failure to serve Cumbria, in particular? Having cancelled every single train in June, four days ago Arriva Northern cancelled 33 trains on the Furness, lakes and coastal lines on one day. Given that the chaos predates the new timetable, the company cannot blame it. Will the Minister help us out by explaining precisely how dreadful Arriva Northern needs to be before he will get his act together, remove its franchise and give us back our trains? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Somebody says, “Irrelevant.” Well, I exercised latitude. I think that there may be a diversionary route. The link between Cumbria and Thameslink—if  it exists—is tangential, but the hon. Gentleman has deployed such intellectual dexterity as he possesses, which I am sure is very considerable, to render his question orderly, in a manner of speaking.

Jo Johnson: One link that joins these issues is the Glaister review, which is now under way. It will examine what went wrong in the run-up to the introduction of the timetable, and how it affected the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Cumbria.

John Bercow: The professor has helped us, and that is very useful.

Nick Herbert: Some 2,400 trains have been cancelled at Hassocks, in my constituency, since the introduction of the new timetable. The interim timetable this week seems to have resulted in fewer cancellations, so it is an improvement, but trains are still being delayed. What it has not done is to restore the direct service from Hassocks to Clapham Junction, and Hassocks is unique among commuting stations in no longer having such a service. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at the matter again and ask GTR to review that omission, with a view to putting it right in future timetable changes?

Jo Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising that there has been some improvement since the introduction of the interim timetable on Sunday. He has been a strong champion of his constituents and their rail services in Hassocks. He and I have discussed how we can restore the direct services that he has mentioned on several occasions, and we have had debates on them in the House. I assure him that I will continue to raise the matter with GTR.

Mohammad Yasin: The Minister is saying that there is no quick fix, but I suggest to him that there is a quick fix for Bedford rail users—reinstating the East Midlands Trains service for rail users. They are struggling with Govia Thameslink, which has breached its contract with the DFT twice since 2015 and has surely done so again. The major cause of the failure was insufficient and under-qualified drivers, and it is the same cause this time. Will the Government publish the  remedial plan from the second breach so that we can determine the extent of Thameslink’s unprecedented and repeated failings?

Jo Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has been a strong voice for his constituents. We have met on a number of occasions to discuss EMT’s services and the withdrawal of services to Bedford in the peak. As he knows, we are working hard with EMT to see what can be done. There is no easy solution, given the constraints, and I would caution him against thinking that there is a quick fix. If there were, the amount of effort that the Department and the train operators have been putting into finding a solution would have produced one by now.

Bambos Charalambous: Despite the interim timetable from Govia Thameslink, my constituents continue to get a woeful service, as they have done for years, on the Great Northern route in and out of Moorgate. Does the Minister agree that it is about time that Govia was stripped of this franchise and the line given to the Mayor of London to run?

Jo Johnson: The Secretary of State has indicated that he is open to looking at the shape of the franchise in future. Discussions have been held with the Mayor of London about potentially including some elements of the current franchise within the orbit of Transport for London’s Overground service. We are totally open-minded to solutions that work in the passenger interest.

Diana R. Johnson: Following on from the final question by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, and in the light of speculation in the Railway Gazette, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will be coming before the House in the next few days, leading up to when we finish on 24 July, to announce that the electrification of the TransPennine route has been cancelled?

Jo Johnson: I am here at the pleasure of the Speaker, and I cannot predict when I will be called. The TransPennine upgrade is a massive programme of investment. It is the flagship enhancement programme of the next control period for our railways. We will spend £2.9 billion on the TransPennine route in the course of the years 2019 to 2024. It is a phased programme that will include major civil engineering work, and it will also include electrification.

NORTHERN IRELAND: RECENT VIOLENCE

Tony Lloyd: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement regarding the recent violence in Northern Ireland and to outline what the Government are doing to assist the Police Service of Northern Ireland and local community organisations to ensure that violence does not return to the streets of Northern Ireland.

Karen Bradley: I start by paying tribute to the brave men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the emergency services. They have been working relentlessly over recent weeks to keep people safe and secure, and in some cases they have come under attack while doing so. I am sure the whole House will agree that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I, like the hon. Gentleman, was in Northern Ireland on 12 July to be briefed on the ground by the Chief Constable and the chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, when I stressed once again our admiration and support for the work that they do. This morning, I had further conversations with the Chief Constable and the head of the Northern Ireland civil service for an update on the latest situation.
Let me now set out the factual position. Last week, on 11 July, in Belfast and some surrounding areas of County Down, there were episodes of serious disorder following a court order to remove a bonfire that was considered to be unsafe. The public disorder took place throughout the evening and into the night, resulting in a number of hoax security alerts, pipe bombs, and a number of vehicle hijackings. A number of sporadic, isolated acts of violence have taken place in the days since 11 July, causing some damage to property—but thankfully there have been no injuries. I know from discussions with the Chief Constable that every effort is being made to bring to justice those responsible for this reprehensible activity. In addition, we witnessed unrelated but serious disorder in Londonderry last week. This included violent acts of provocation against the police and, in some cases, petrol bombs being thrown at residential properties. There was also a serious shooting attack against police officers that could easily have injured anyone in the area.
I have been absolutely clear in my condemnation of this activity, which is a matter of deep concern for everyone who wants to see a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. I am also clear that this violence is not representative of the wider community in Derry/Londonderry. As the Chief Constable informed me this morning, there have so far been 15 arrests in connection with the violence in Londonderry, and 10 people have been charged. I know that the PSNI will continue to do all it can to bring those responsible before the courts. In many cases, it would appear that young people are being exploited and goaded into criminal activity by adults who have nothing to offer their communities.
For our part, the Government have invested significantly in the PSNI, with some £230 million of additional security funding in the 2010 Parliament and £160 million over the current spending review period. In addition, as a result of the 2015 Fresh Start agreement, we are providing £25 million to help tackle the scourge of  paramilitary violence. Let me be very clear: paramilitary activity was never justified in Northern Ireland in the past, and it cannot be justified today. It must stop, and I know that the Chief Constable is committed to using the full force of the law to that end. All of us need to work together, across the whole community, to see that the malign influence of paramilitary activity is ended for good.

Tony Lloyd: I thank the Secretary of State for her comments so far. I join her in recognising the work of the PSNI, but also the work of community groups, particularly in Derry/Londonderry, who came together last Friday and whose actions almost certainly had an impact on the ongoing levels of violence that had taken place in the city. I also want to mention the forbearance of the communities that felt themselves under attack during that period.
I would say to the House, and probably to people in Great Britain, that the situation that took place last week, with different causes and different motivations, was unacceptable. None of us should over-dramatise what took place, but none of us should be foolish enough to think that it does not matter. We saw burnt-out buses across east Belfast. We saw one bus, at least, in Newtownards, hijacked at gunpoint. We saw a return to political violence in Derry/Londonderry. We also saw, as the Secretary of State said, the use of live rounds, possibly with the intent to take life—the life of a PSNI officer. That means that we are talking about very serious levels of civil disorder. I pay tribute to those who are bringing to bear efforts to control this. Nevertheless, we have to take it seriously.
There is now an obligation of leadership on Arlene Foster and on Michelle O’Neill, the respective leaders of the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin, but there is also a demand for leadership from the Secretary of State and from the United Kingdom Government. In particular, we must now ensure that the Good Friday institutions are made once again to work. They were put in place precisely because they brought an end to the troubles. Some of them have fallen seriously into disrepute, others almost casually into disrepute.
In that context, I welcome the Secretary of State’s call to re-establish the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. That is right and proper. However, we need to know what the agenda of its first meeting will be. Will it look, for example, at the recent political violence and at the need to get the Stormont Assembly back into operation? It is not just a question of east-west; the BIIGC also has a role to play in the situation in Northern Ireland. The meeting also cannot be allowed to be a one-off. The BIIGC now has to be brought on to the basis of being a standing conference, so that the Government in Dublin can work with the Government here to bring legitimate pressure. We must also see the restoration of the Stormont Assembly, which is perhaps the most important institution. There the Secretary of State must take action, bringing all parties together until there is a resolution. That really does matter.
Finally, we congratulate the PSNI on its work. It is one of the real achievements of the Good Friday agreement, in generating trust across different communities. However, it is under-resourced, even on the basis of the Patten recommendations; the Chief Constable has requested 300 extra officers. The Secretary of State must now  show real action. Northern Ireland has had 547 days without a Government, breaking the record held by Belgium for non-government. That is not a great record. She must give leadership and get people back round that table.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman made a number of points. I start by joining him in paying tribute to the community groups in both Derry/Londonderry and Belfast. In east Belfast, community groups worked hard to ensure that the issues around bonfires were managed so as to minimise the effects. I am not complacent—I recognise that we saw violence that is unacceptable—but the community groups really helped by working together. I pay tribute to those groups and those communities, who, as he said, are the ones in the firing line—literally, in this case.
The hon. Gentleman is right that what we saw is unacceptable. Like him, last Thursday I saw those burnt-out cars, saw the level of disorder. To suggest that that level of disorder is acceptable on the streets of the United Kingdom—anywhere in the United Kingdom—would be absolutely inaccurate. We all join together in this House in condemning the activities and in paying tribute again to the PSNI and the work that it does.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the PSNI’s resources. He will know that it has put in a specific bid around further resources and we are ensuring that that is looked at in government. Again, I pay tribute to the PSNI. As he said, we do have a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference next week, the agenda for which will be available. We obviously want to ensure that we have an appropriate agenda that reflects the conference’s strand 3 nature.
I now finally join the hon. Gentleman in agreeing that we need devolved government in Stormont. Devolved government and the institutions established under the Belfast agreement are key. The relative peace and security we see in Northern Ireland is as a result of that agreement. I, as Secretary of State, will not shy away from taking steps that need to be taken to ensure good governance in Northern Ireland, but I agree that the best, most appropriate and effective way for the people of Northern Ireland is to see those decisions taken in Stormont.

Mark Pritchard: I do not think I have ever commended the comments of any Sinn Féin politician before in this House, but does the Secretary of State agree that the comments of Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Féin leader, were helpful rather than unhelpful, and correct in that it is dialogue, not violence, that Northern Ireland needs?

Karen Bradley: I agree with my hon. Friend on the comments made by Gerry Adams and those made by Mary Lou McDonald, the president of Sinn Féin. I also agree with comments made by political leaders across all parties in Northern Ireland condemning the violence. The fact that the people of Northern Ireland have heard their political leaders saying the same thing with the same voice is incredibly important. That message needs to be made to the very, very small number of people—it is a very small number now—who do not believe that the way to resolve the issues in Northern Ireland is through dialogue rather than violence.

Gavin Newlands: We on the Scottish National party Benches of course condemn any acts of violence in Northern Ireland  and any attempts by any party to destabilise the Good Friday agreement. I also pay tribute to the PSNI for its response to the unrest and for keeping local communities safe. The fact that all parties have condemned the violence demonstrates an appetite to work together constructively, thereby creating a window of opportunity for further talks on restoring power sharing.
Simon Coveney has visited Derry and met the PSNI and residents, but the Secretary of State has not yet visited any areas affected by the violence. Will she tell the House why that is? Why has it taken an urgent question for her to address the House on this very important issue?
Does the Secretary of State believe that the vacuum in leadership, and instability, has led to this increased tension and unrest? There have been months and months of political drift. Will she tell us in detail what she is doing to restore power sharing at Stormont?

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for joining in the condemnation of the activity that we have seen. It is incredibly important to hear that united voice from this House, sending support and a message to those people in Northern Ireland who are standing up against violence.
I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that I had not visited any of the affected areas, but I was in east Belfast and Newtownards on Thursday, the site of some of the violence, and I intend to be in Derry/Londonderry in the near future. It is also worth saying that, as well as Simon Coveney, Arlene Foster visited the Fountain estate in Londonderry over the weekend, again to show her solidarity with the community. He is right that the answer is to have devolved government in Stormont and to have those politicians, who are speaking with one voice—I pay tribute to them for that—not just speaking with one voice but acting with one voice.

Maria Caulfield: I join my right hon. Friend in expressing deep admiration for the PSNI. Given that there is no functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland, will she identify what resources and extra support are going in to help support the PSNI and community groups, so that they can deal with any escalation in violence?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend is right to reflect on the fact that great credit needs to be paid to the PSNI. She asks about additional resources. In my comments I mentioned that the 2015 Fresh Start agreement provided £25 million of additional funding from the UK Government to help tackle the scourge of paramilitary violence, and we have also put in £230 million in the 2010 Parliament and £160 million over the current spending review period.

Gregory Campbell: I join the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State in defending and exhorting the security services and community representatives in the light of the ongoing violence. The most sustained campaign of violence was in the Fountain/Bogside area of Londonderry. She is right: I invited my party leader there to tour the area—hopefully, the shadow Secretary of State will be able to do the same with his party leader—to speak to the people who have suffered as a result of violence. First, will she confirm that she has received a written invitation from me to come and visit the area very urgently?  Secondly, will she review the security implications of the fencing there, so that the people who have lived under threat and under terror for many, many years can receive some comfort and assurance that action will be taken to help them?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous constituency MP, who regularly raises many constituency issues with me. I join him in his tributes to the community and the PSNI for the work they have done. I can confirm that not only did I receive a written invitation from him but he personally hand-delivered that written invitation, so I have definitely received it.

James Heappey: During my own service in Northern Ireland, I have seen at first hand the skill with which PSNI officers react proportionately but robustly to public disorder and paramilitary criminality in the Province. Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing admiration for the bravery and restraint that the PSNI shows when policing these very challenging situations?

Karen Bradley: I join my hon. Friend in saying exactly that. I visited the gold command centre on Thursday morning to see the work that those very dedicated public servants do; that is something that I will take with me for a long time.

Owen Smith: I also commend the PSNI and the community for the work they have done and unreservedly condemn those people who have perpetrated violence in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the vacuum in our politics in Northern Ireland is, while not wholly responsible, at last partly responsible? I urge her to do more to fill that vacuum with political dialogue and restore the institutions.

Karen Bradley: I agree that we need political dialogue, but there is no excuse for the violence we have seen. There can be no excuse whatsoever. It is totally unacceptable behaviour.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her response, and for coming to the House to make that clear. I put on record my condemnation of the violence that took place across the Province, but in particular in my constituency of Strangford. Compare that, Mr Speaker, with the next day, when the Secretary of State attended the 12 July celebrations: we had a smashing day. It was good to see here there, and she was obviously very welcome.
What we need, Secretary of State, is more police on the streets. The Patten recommendation talked of 7,500 officers, but we now have 6,715—a shortfall. What are we doing to address that? The PSNI wants to address the scourge of paramilitaries and their activities across the Province. It has a strategy for that, but it needs the officers and needs the resources.

Karen Bradley: I did very much enjoy my day in Newtownards. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have received a request from the PSNI, and we are considering that matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call Tom Pursglove.

Tom Pursglove: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but my question has already been covered.

John Bercow: That is an extraordinary and almost a novel development in the House of Commons—a Member who deliberately eschews repetition.

Chris Bryant: It is the second time this week.

John Bercow: Is it the second time this week? The hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) will be in “The Guinness Book of Records”. Of that I think we can rest assured.

Chris Bryant: For many things.

John Bercow: Possibly for many things, as the hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position.

Nigel Dodds: I hope I will not repeat what was said earlier. I thank the Secretary of State for what she has said. May I gently say to her that of course the experiences in my constituency over recent years reflect the fact that we have made considerable progress? There was worse violence at the time when the Executive was actually in place, ironically. I just make the point that these things are not necessarily linked. There are particular circumstances in Londonderry and east Belfast. The need for extra police resources is key. That is what the Chief Constable is asking for, and that is what the Secretary of State has heard today.

Karen Bradley: As the Chief Constable put it to me today, there has been slow but fragile progress. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have received the request from the Chief Constable, and I am considering it.

Gavin Robinson: Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. I apologise for missing the start of the urgent question. I am grateful to you for your generosity. [Interruption.] I am very grateful, Mr Speaker—and we will move on from that.
The Secretary of State will be aware that, on the evening of 11 July, Assistant Chief Constable Todd made the quite extraordinary declaration that he expected widespread violence in the name of a paramilitary organisation, particularly in my constituency. As the Secretary of State knows, at least a dozen cars, caravans and so on were burnt out, which, to my mind, satisfies the conditions for a Chief Constable’s certificate and for compensation. Has the Secretary of State engaged with the PSNI, and will she confirm that steps are being taken to recognise the involvement of a proscribed organisation, and that compensation will be arranged quickly and efficiently?

Karen Bradley: I spoke to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency was particularly affected, before the events of last week. I have spoken to the Chief Constable, but perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the specifics of our conversation.

PROXY VOTING

Alistair Carmichael: (Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on arrangements for Members on maternity, paternity or adoption leave and proxy voting.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this urgent question. As I have said on many occasions, it is right that Members of this House have the opportunity to spend time with their new babies.
I want to start by saying that the situation that arose yesterday, where the pair between the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) was broken, was not good enough. I am very sorry that it happened. I am assured by the Chief Whip that the breaking of the pair yesterday was done entirely in error and will not be repeated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth has apologised directly to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for the mistake, as has my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip on behalf of the Whips Office. I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. In particular, her work on the steering group establishing the independent complaints and grievance policy has been invaluable.
I believe all new parents should be entitled to spend uninterrupted time with their new baby. This is vital for both the physical and mental health of parents and babies. The Government Whips Office has undertaken always to pair Opposition MPs on maternity leave from the start to the end of their leave, without applying any conditions. Should an MP who is on baby leave wish to vote in any particular Division, the pair will be re-established immediately afterwards for all subsequent Divisions until their baby leave ends. I am really sorry that an error was made yesterday, but I have been reassured that there remains a guaranteed pair for MPs who are currently pregnant or who have a new baby.
Pairing is a matter for the usual channels. I can tell the House that since the general election the pairing system has worked well overall. Almost 2,000 pairs have been arranged between Government and Opposition MPs. We have investigated yesterday’s result in the light of the broken pair to see whether the result should be changed. As it would not materially change the result of the Division, we will not look to take further action on this occasion. However, I sincerely hope that the House can accept the apologies that have been offered.
On the issue of proxy voting, I know this is a matter of great interest to many Members on both sides of the House. I am planning to ensure the House can have the debate in the September sitting, and I will update the House further about its scheduling in the usual way. No one was more disappointed than I was that the debate we scheduled was unable to take place due to the tragic events in Amesbury. I am sure all Members look forward to discussing the matter further at the earliest opportunity.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. I very much welcome the tone of what she says about the importance of maternity, paternity and adoption leave, and I am sure that is a matter of common accord across the whole House.
As the Leader of the House has said, as my party’s Chief Whip, I was given an undertaking yesterday by the Government pairing Whip that the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) would be absent from the Lobbies in accordance with the normal terms. I was therefore very concerned to learn that, although the right hon. Gentleman had not voted in the earlier Divisions or, indeed, even at the 6 pm Division, he had taken part in the Divisions at 6.15 and 6.30 pm. Obviously, this is a very serious breach of the convention. Within the usual channels, we rely on these agreements being honoured. The Government Chief Whip has apologised to me directly, and I of course accept that apology. It remains less than clear to me exactly how this came to pass, but I can pursue that directly with the Government Chief Whip outside the Chamber.
Yesterday’s events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which is the question of relying on pairing to provide maternity, paternity and adoption leave. It is using a 19th-century practice to provide for cover under  21st-century employment law, and that is no longer good enough. I can think of no other area of public or business life where this would be allowed to happen, and I have to say that I think the House should no longer allow it either. My question to the Leader of the House is: will she reconvene the talks between the parties with a view to devising a sensible and workable solution to this problem? It is clear from recent days that we are likely to have a lot more knife-edge votes in the months to come. The Leader of the House is absolutely right that the result was not affected by the breach of the pair last night, but that is not to say that, at some point in the future, if it occurred again, that would not happen.
Those who are absent from their duties as a result of baby leave should be able to go on leave without their cover being subject to this sort of convention and the uncertainty that comes with it. They should be allowed to enjoy those most important first months secure in the knowledge that their absence is properly covered. We now need a properly organised system of proxy voting, and it is apparent from last night’s events that we can no longer allow the situation we have tolerated thus far to continue.
Mr Speaker, you know that I have been a Member since 2001. When I was first elected in June 2001, my younger son was 10 weeks old. I rejoice in the progress—much of it at your behest—that the House has made in relation to childcare since that time, but it was not always thus. When I was first elected, children were not to be seen and they were certainly not to be heard within the House. I fear I may suffer when I get home for recounting this, but I remember that I once had to change my younger son’s nappy in the Members’ Cloakroom—obviously, he should not have been there because he was not a Member—on a copy of the Daily Record, because there was no changing mat to be found. Whether it was novel for that sort of content to be found in the pages of the Daily Record I will leave others to judge.
We have come a long way, but anybody who thought that we had done it all and that there was no more left to be done was sadly disabused of that last night. Will the Leader of the House please take these concerns seriously? All my experience in this House tells me that when the House accepts the need for change at an early   point we make sensible changes for ourselves. If we wait until change is forced on us, the law of unintended consequences will inevitably come into play.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I completely agree with him. I am personally committed and resolved to try to improve this issue for new parents. I think that I have demonstrated that commitment in my response to the urgent question. It was the tragic events at Amesbury that prevented the debate from taking place. The Procedure Committee has done a good job in providing thoughts about how proxy voting could work, but it has raised a number of questions on which it will be important for us to consult in this Chamber before we make a final decision. Let me remind colleagues of some of them: when should a proxy be used; should it be used for every type of vote, including those on going to war or a closure motion, when, as we know, colleagues should be present in the Chamber; and should it apply to all business, private as well as public, or only to Government business. There is also the contested question of whether it should apply only to baby leave or to other circumstances. That is why I am so keen to have a debate in this place before we come to conclusions, but I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s tone and his desire to see this resolved. I share that desire and, as I say, I will ensure that we get that debate during the September sitting.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, he has already committed to engaging again with Opposition Whips to try to find a better process. For our part, the Government will be tightening the procedure by which individual paired Members are made aware that they absolutely must not vote and between which hours of the day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.

Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution and her commitment to bringing the debate back to the Chamber. Clearly, the Procedure Committee carried out the review, as required by the House. Will she undertake to look at the aspects of the fundamental issue of Members being required to be present on the Estate or in the Chamber to register their votes? If we are going to change the system, will she consider allowing people who are hospitalised or have other complications to do so, too? They do not choose to be away, but are forced to be away because of medical conditions.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend clearly highlighted why we need further debate. I feel that there is something fundamentally different about baby leave over other sorts of leave, and I also feel that, were the House to undertake such a significant constitutional change to our conventions, we should start small because of the law of unintended consequences. That is a matter for further consultation with the House and I look forward to the debate in September.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Before I call other Members—I do want to hear others— in thanking the Leader of the House for what she said, I want to make the point, as much for wider public knowledge as anything else, that we know  that the Procedure Committee looked at this matter and that many people gave evidence to the Committee, myself included, and I made it clear that I was personally perfectly happy with the idea of a proxy voting system in respect of baby leave in particular and that I would be happy to play my part in the operation of such a system.
For what it is worth, I think it is qualitatively in a different category from other requests for proxy voting, but that is a matter for the House to decide. The only other thing I would like to say, which is not directed at any one individual at all, is that I detect in the House and in representations made privately to me a very strong sense not merely that we should debate the issue again soon but that we should decide the issue and, if a change is agreed on, give effect to it. Obviously, if a change is not agreed on, that does not arise, but I think that there is concern about a potentially endless debate, which I feel absolutely sure the Leader of the House would not want and which I would not want. With good will, perhaps, and I think I speak for people on both sides of the argument, we can resolve the matter. I am sure that people would not want endless procrastination.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for her response and congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on his urgent question on this important issue. I thank you, too, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
Last night’s events do not reflect well on this House; I am sure the whole House agrees. It is time that we ensure that this is a modern workplace with modern employment practices. The Leader of the House and I had both decided on 5 July that we would not give closing speeches so that we could debate proxy voting, but she has said that she wants the debate in September. Could she arrange for the debate to take place next week, as we have just a general debate? There is time to discuss that.
Last night shows why the Government must urgently introduce proxy voting for those on baby leave. The Prime Minister’s answer earlier to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was simply not good enough. Consultation by this Government is always code for delay and obfuscation. Members of the Procedure Committee have taken evidence from you, Mr Speaker, and from all of us, and they have produced a report that we could debate immediately. I know that the Leader of the House wants urgently to find a way forward. Does she agree that proxy voting for those on baby leave could be introduced today without the need for debate through public agreement by all parties to nod through those on baby leave for every Division? We could ensure that those voting by such means were denoted by a “P”, or, to make it really up to date—and I hope Hansard have this—a baby emoji, giving full transparency to the public. Will she agree to meet me today to discuss this?
It is vital that we are a modern workplace and that those on baby leave can have their vote recorded and take part in our proceedings as they want to and as they are elected to.

Andrea Leadsom: As I have just said, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has already started discussions with Opposition Whips on exactly those lines and others.  This House needs to decide how it wants to accommodate baby leave and I do not agree with the hon. Lady that we can just do that today. There are unintended consequences and implications of any solution we choose, and it is important that the House has the opportunity to debate the issue. It could be possible to have an earlier debate, but, of course, if I were to say that we would have a debate on Monday, the hon. Lady would ask why we were giving no notice. I felt it very important to ensure that suitable notice is given to enable Members to contribute to the debate in September.

Heidi Allen: We have to modernise. I come from a business background, I have worked in the public sector, and I have never experienced archaic practices like some of those that we have here. We have to change. We have to find an alternative, new way of voting. Dragging in sick and heavily pregnant Members does not send a good message to the public. It is not good enough for us to be okay in this place; we have to be better than okay. In everything we do, we have to display the very highest standards for the country to follow. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. We need to debate this, and we need to do so fully. I accept that, but we must do so as a matter of urgency, and I worry that if the debate is in September we will have only a short window before we break again for the conference recess, and I want to have some sense that there is time for a vote and a decision. We need to do this with open minds, to decide it, as you say, Mr Speaker, and to embrace it and not be afraid of change.

Andrea Leadsom: I agree with my hon. Friend. I will table a debate, and we need to bring forward a solution with which the House is happy as soon as possible.

Pete Wishart: What happened last night was nothing short of appalling and underlines why the Scottish National party will have nothing whatsoever to do with these antiquated pairing arrangements. Pairing relies on trust and I am sorry, but we are absolutely right not to place our trust in Government Members. We have to ask how it was right that the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) voted in some of these votes last night and not in others, and why was it that the most important votes were the votes that he voted in.
We have to change the voting arrangements of this House. We see that every day in the absurd waste of time of a headcount in cramped voting Lobbies, but to be disenfranchised for having a baby in 2018 demonstrates just how out of touch this archaic place is and how these arrangements should embarrass and shame this House. No more of these ridiculous pairing arrangements—we need reform now that recognises the realities of the communities we represent. We have a perfectly good Procedure Committee report and I gave evidence to that Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). All we have to do is agree and accept it. Surely now the Leader of the House can bring this forward at the earliest opportunity. Let us end this nonsense now.

Andrea Leadsom: As I have said, I will bring forward this debate at the earliest opportunity. I absolutely agree that we need to resolve this issue, but I gently say to the hon. Gentleman again, as I often do, that he has a  perfect opportunity in the Lobby to come and talk to Government Ministers and to promote how he wants to improve the plight of Scotland. All he has to do is join us in our Lobby to be able to do that.

John Bercow: I think I can say in a non-partisan spirit that the Leader of the House is an optimist.

Will Quince: Mr Speaker, I sat on your diversity and inclusion panel, and we discussed this issue at some length. We identified that it is far more complex an issue than just baby leave, as important as that is. For example, as we speak, I understand that the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill is being concluded. That would give two weeks paid leave for those who lose a child. This is a complex issue, so I very much welcome that my right hon. Friend is bringing forward the debate, but does she agree that such a complex issue needs to be debated in full by all Members of the House?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is exactly right: we do need to debate this. I have already given some examples of where as yet un-agreed factors are involved. I think that consulting the House in the September sitting will give us the answers we want and we will be able to progress very quickly after that.

Liz Kendall: I am afraid that it stretches credibility to think that the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) could remember that he was on a pair for all the votes in the afternoon and then happened to forget at 6 o’clock, when everybody knew from the start of the day that they were the most important votes. That aside, I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) said. We have to get a wriggle on with this. We have massively important votes in October about the future of the country. If the debate is in September, will the Leader of the House guarantee that changes will be made before those big Brexit votes?

Andrea Leadsom: I will absolutely get a wriggle on. I point out to the hon. Lady that the issue of pairing is a matter for the usual channels, but as she will know, pairing can be per vote, and not necessarily for a whole day. I think that is where the error was caused. I understand the scepticism, but this apology is very genuine, and the mistake was very genuine. I ask hon. Members to accept that the pairing system does not quite work as the hon. Lady suggests it does.

Vicky Ford: I have recently been elected as the chair of the all-party group on women in Parliament, which is a great honour. I was paired last night to help an Opposition Member who wanted to make sure that his vote was not missed. I also spent a number of years in the European Parliament, which a lot of people say is very modern in its voting practice, but it does not have a pairing system. I often saw women with very tiny babies travelling all across Europe to Strasbourg to vote, so the pairing system that I have witnessed here appears to me to be quite modern and far from archaic. However, it must be robust and respected. As a mother of three who once had to spend quite a lot of time with her baby when he was very unwell, I say that maternity leave is important but so is compassionate  leave, as is sick leave for one’s own reasons. I would like to see a proper debate so that all these types of leave can be properly respected, and not just baby leave.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us something of her experiences, both in the European Parliament and here. She is exactly right: there are some complicated factors to discuss and I look forward to having that discussion as soon as possible.

Chris Bryant: Whips do get a bit of a bad rap sometimes. I must confess that quite a lot of Whips are among my best friends, including on the Government side of the House, and often they enable Members do their jobs effectively, efficiently and well. However, when we are at a moment such as this, when frankly, a kind of total war is going on on key issues that affect the nation, it is going to be terribly difficult to make these conventions last. We have already had nodding through abandoned. We used to have a tradition that Whips, and Government Whips in particular, never patrolled the Benches inside the Chamber to try to prevent people from moving motions and things like that, but we now see that as standard in all the debates. We have to move forward with a vote on this issue as soon as we possibly can, so that we just take the temperature down a bit.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman is often in this place when I am, and I completely agree with him that we need to continue to listen to people. We need to show people the utmost respect, which I certainly always try to do, and I know that he does, too. My colleagues on the Whips’ Bench are delighted to hear that he considers them to be his friends. I am always very grateful to hear his thoughts on these issues.

John Bercow: Well, they will be pleased to know they have some.

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my right hon. Friend for her very gracious statement and I am pleased that the apology given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has been accepted by Liberal Democrat Members. As someone who was on maternity leave when the general election was called last year, this issue is very close to my heart. It did make me seriously consider whether this is something that I could do with a six-month-old baby. However, given the over 2,000 successful pairs that we have had in this Parliament, does the Leader of the House agree that we should not dismiss the entire pairing system because of one mistake?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. Without wishing to be hostile to anyone, there have been a number of broken pairs, which are always carefully looked at on both sides of the House. It is very difficult. As I say, a pair is not usually for a lengthy period of time. It can be for one vote because a Member has to go somewhere or is not back from somewhere. It is actually a very complex system. Errors do happen. Yesterday was an error and my hon. Friend is exactly right to say that we should not ditch the whole system because of the odd few errors here and there.

Luciana Berger: The Leader of the House should not underestimate the damage done by what happened yesterday. I urge her to look very closely, if she has not already, at the comments on social media. I have certainly received representations from my constituents today who are appalled by what happened in this House. We should be setting the example, not falling short of it. The public will have heard the apology from the Leader of the House, but why are the Chief Whip and her right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) not here to listen to this urgent question—[Hon. Members: “He is here!”] My apologies, but equally, the sentiment of that apology will be diminished by the Chief Whip’s absence.

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth is indeed here. When he and I spoke last night about this subject, he was very upset to hear about this problem. He was unaware. He was absolutely blameless in this, and he has apologised to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). He is here, so I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that. As for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, his deputy is here and he has apologised on behalf of the Whips Office, where the administrative error took place.

Jeremy Quin: Clearly, there was a mistake last night. Happily, it did not affect the result of any Division. It is a mistake that cannot be repeated. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate to the House that anyone who is on maternity leave and requires a pair will get one?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, I absolutely confirm that to the House. It was an undertaking given by the Government Whips Office and it remains in place. As I mentioned in my answer to the urgent question, if a Member wishes to come in for a particular vote, they can do so and then the pairing can be resumed straight after that vote.

Christine Jardine: As the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware, we had a lengthy debate on proxy voting, supported by all parties in the House, in which there was near unanimous support for it going ahead. In those circumstances, can we not have the debate on Monday and then refine the process, for which there is already support, over the summer, after which it could be agreed?

Andrea Leadsom: I was delighted to take part in the debate to which the hon. Lady refers. It was a very good debate. As I recall, there were about 10 or 11 contributors, but those contributions did not necessarily look at some of the broader issues around, for example, the unintended consequences of one person on parental leave deciding to take a pair and another to proxy vote, thereby potentially leading to misunderstanding among constituents. Such issues would be very personal to the individual. It is important that the House discusses these matters and draws a conclusion with the benefit of a proper debate.

Gareth Johnson: My understanding is that a number of agreed pairings in place for yesterday’s Divisions were adhered to completely. Would the Leader of the House agree that, regardless of whether we end up with a form of proxy voting, we should not allow  one error to cloud our judgment of the effectiveness of the pairing system, no matter how regrettable that error may have been?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have had about 2,000 pairs in this Parliament. Some have been broken, owing to administrative errors, but nevertheless it remains a good means by which Members can take either urgent or unexpected absences and not have their votes just omitted from the overall Division result.

Patrick Grady: As a Whip, I like to think I have friends on both sides of the House. I suspect that a lot of people watching are finding out for the first time what the pairing system is. The lack of transparency is important. A proxy system, whether by a smile emoji or whatever, would allow for much greater transparency, scrutiny and understanding, and it would not just benefit Members who are new parents. Not only proxy voting but fixed decision times and electronic voting would help to end this farce of taking so much time walking through the Lobbies.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issues of how we vote are looked at periodically, and I am always keen to consider the well-known views of him and his colleagues on electronic voting. Generally speaking, the House tends not to agree; its view tends to be that the way we vote currently is the right way. It also tends to consider that the pairing system is effective and useful and offers the flexibility that all Members want.

Tom Pursglove: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any systems in place in Parliaments around the world from which lessons could be learned? I tend to agree that there are intricacies involved in all this. For example, we are very conscious that we have independent Members. How would this work for them?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises important questions that would be part of the debate. Professor Sarah Childs, in “The Good Parliament” report, looked at other legislatures, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, and found that most—six in total—of the surveyed Parliaments had formal House leave arrangements, those being either general leave provisions or more specific maternity, paternity and parental leave provisions; three did not but relied on informal party arrangements—Canada, Scotland and Wales; and a single Parliament—Sweden—matched the country-level provision for all employees. So they do differ, but he is absolutely right to raise the importance of considering how other legislatures handle this situation.

Emma Reynolds: Let’s be as good as Sweden, shall we? Depriving the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who was at home taking care of her three-week-old baby, of a pair last night was disgraceful, but depriving her of the opportunity to represent her constituents was unacceptable. I was on so-called maternity leave last year, and was hauled in several times, sometimes late at night, when my baby was only five months old, so pairing is not enough. I was not able to represent my constituents in that time. This is not complicated; it is simple. Will the Leader of the House commit that in September, when we have this debate, it will be on a votable motion and that if it is passed we will proceed to introduce the proxy voting arrangement as soon as possible?

Andrea Leadsom: I am told by the deputy Chief Whip that in fact the hon. Lady’s pair was not broken by the Government at any time, so if she came into the House, that was her choice. It is important to make that point, given the accusations around. The Government have been very clear that we will honour pairs for baby leave. On the hon. Lady’s other point, as I said it is important that we debate some of these issues by way of a consultation in this place. As she will have heard, having sat through this urgent question, there are different, important and opposing views, so it is important that we have a proper debate.

Kevin Foster: Obviously, none of us would see dragging someone who is terminally ill or heavily pregnant through the building as the best way for a modern Parliament to operate, but neither would any of us want to see Divisions like those in the New Zealand House of Representatives, which basically involve the Chief Whip of the relevant party holding up a hand and exercising a block vote on behalf of all their Members. Does the Leader of the House agree that it will never be possible to offer an exhaustive list of each situation in which a pair could be considered, and that even if a proxy system came in, the pairing system would still need to exist?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Procedure Committee report proposed that hon. Members taking baby leave should be able to choose between proxy voting and a pair, even from vote to vote, so the complexity would obviously increase; nevertheless it is important that we have choice and flexibility.

Helen Goodman: The Chair of the Procedure Committee will attest to the fact that I have been a proxy voting sceptic—until yesterday. Does the Leader of the House agree that the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has done for proxy voting what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) did for the private Members’ Bills process?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady is being extremely unfair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). It is absolutely clear that he was unaware that he was breaking a pair. It was an administrative error.

Nigel Huddleston: Does the Leader of the House share my disappointment, from talking to potential parliamentary candidates, at just how many of them are put off standing for Parliament altogether because of the widely held perception that this place is inconsistent with family life or even the aspiration to a family life? How many potential fantastic MPs have we lost on both sides of the Chamber because of that reputation? Can she assure me that she will do everything she can to make sure that this place becomes friendly for anybody who wants to stand for Parliament, no matter what their stage in life?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We need many more people to come forward, particularly women, and to be compatible with good, solid family life, it is vital that we look at how we manage things in this House and improve on it.

Melanie Onn: In her statement, the Leader of the House told us that 2,000 pairs had been arranged without error until last night, but I note that since then, in her responses, she has backtracked slightly to ease herself through this discussion. People will take from that what they will, but given the closeness of the votes on Brexit this week, which I think has driven this so-called administrative error, the simplest way forward would be for her to adopt the good and thorough work of the Procedure Committee and put its recommendations to a vote. She says that she is supportive, so why is she trying to wriggle out of this?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady is wrong on two counts. I said that the pairing system had worked well overall. As I have made clear, there have been more than 2,000 pairs in this Parliament and several have been broken because of errors. The vast majority were broken by Opposition Members, although I do not want to be at all partisan over this. It is a complex administrative system and errors have occurred. She makes a good point about the importance of bringing in new processes, but the Procedure Committee did not set out a prescription; it raised a number of issues that the House would need to decide on, such as, for example, what business should be proxy votable—all business, just Government business, business Monday to Thursday, closure motions of the House, private Members’ Bills on Fridays? These are the questions that the Procedure Committee rightly raised and the reasons why the House needs to debate this further.

James Heappey: I echo the enthusiasm expressed by colleagues across the House for a look at our voting processes and how we might make them more family-friendly. In the meantime, does my right hon. Friend agree that the pairing system can be transparent? Those who are paired can say that they are paired and with whom they are paired, as, indeed, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) did yesterday on social media.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is right. Let me reiterate the undertaking by the Government Whips Office to provide even greater process, so that individuals who are paired will be specifically told the duration of the pair and with whom they are paired. I think that that will also reduce the number of errors. I can only say again that what has happened is extremely regrettable, and that the Whips are very apologetic about the error.

Ellie Reeves: As a former employment rights lawyer specialising in maternity discrimination and flexible working, I have been shocked by some of the outdated practices in this place. While I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for relaxing the rules to allow my son to go through the voting Lobby with me, it really is time that we became a modern 21st-century workplace. Given that many Members have recently given birth or are currently pregnant, I echo the calls for an urgent vote on proxy voting before the summer recess, before it is too late.

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady says that she is an employment lawyer, in which case she will know very well that Members of Parliament are not employees but office-holders. It would be a very fundamental review  that would say that MPs should become employees. The hon. Lady would have to consider by whom they would be employed, and the subsequent taking on of modern employment regulations. She has not been clear about what she is after, but I am absolutely clear about the fact that we will be debating this issue. We want to provide proper baby leave for new parents, but the hon. Lady cannot possibly suggest that we should become employees in order to do so.

Jess Phillips: I have a quick question for the Leader of the House. I wonder how many times Members, mainly on her own side, raised with her, prior to the proposal for baby leave, the need for a new system for sick Members of Parliament. It seems to me that they have all become incredibly committed to such a system, in what I would call “whataboutery”, since the suggestion about parental leave. Did anyone ever raise the issue with her before?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, a good number of people. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), the Parliamentary Private Secretary, was absent for a considerable length of time with a very serious life-threatening illness. For as long as this Parliament has sat, there has been the need to provide pairing for people who are extremely ill suddenly, and the issue of how best to manage those processes has always been raised. The suggestion that baby leave is a unique problem for the House is simply not true: there are clearly other issues that Members want to raise in the debate.

Alison Thewliss: Mary Beard has said:
“You can’t easily fit women into a structure that is already coded as male; you have to change the structure.”
Pairing is such a structure. It is not transparent, and, in fact, it seeks to disenfranchise two MPs rather than enfranchising one. Will the Leader of the House bring the Procedure Committee’s report to the House before the recess, so that we can vote on it and stop pregnant women being disenfranchised?

Andrea Leadsom: Let me say again that I am absolutely committed to ensuring that women will be able to spend time with their new babies, and the fathers, including in cases of adoption. It is vital that they are able to do so. I have made it extremely clear that I will arrange for a debate during the September sitting, and we can then make fast progress.

Tulip Siddiq: This morning, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on child care and early education, I hosted a lobby consisting of more than 100 nursery and childcare providers. They spoke to me at great length about the challenges that new parents face when they go back to their workplaces, and about maternity discrimination. Does the Leader of the House think that we, here in the House, have the moral legitimacy to lecture those in other workplaces about maternity discrimination and unfair practices when our Government have cheated a pregnant woman out of her vote in the most underhand manner?

Andrea Leadsom: I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, but I absolutely agree with the nursery workers whom she mentioned about the vital  importance of women being treated fairly. What she is seeking to do is simply to politicise this issue, at a time when the Government have made it absolutely clear that there are guaranteed pairs for anyone on baby leave and that what happened yesterday was an error.

Thelma Walker: The Conservative party appears to have an issue with women. That has been made clear by the sexting scandal and the fact that only a third of the Cabinet are women, and now the chairman of the party has broken with parliamentary protocol and betrayed a new mum. The Leader of the House promised that pairing would take place when she withdrew the debate. How can we be sure that the Government will keep their word on anything now?

Andrea Leadsom: We are on our second female Prime Minister. In case the hon. Lady had not noticed, the Leader of the House of Commons is female. In case the hon. Lady had not noticed, the Leader of the House of Lords is female. What is very clear to those on this side of the House is that it is her party that has a problem with women.

SPACE POLICY

Sam Gyimah: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on a key development in UK space policy.
As a result of announcements made this week, the United Kingdom will, for the first time ever, be able to launch satellites from its own soil. This is a development that the whole House should welcome and celebrate. The space sector is changing globally, and at a pace never seen since the race to the moon. It is allowing us to answer questions about ourselves and the universe that curious minds have debated for centuries, but it has also seen the development of technologies that are transforming our day-to-day life here on Earth. For example, the technology that was developed to provide clean air on the International Space Station is now being used to control the spread of superbugs in hospitals across the world.
The UK is well placed to be at the forefront of developments in space, and the Government are determined that we will take advantage of the vast opportunities that are available to us as a country. That is why I met the new NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, today to discuss UK-US collaboration. As we all know, NASA is the biggest space agency in the world, with budgets in excess of $10 billion a year. We discussed how to extend and deepen the opportunities for our two countries to collaborate, especially in relation to the hugely ambitious vision for exploration set out by President Trump.
It is nearly 50 years since man landed on the moon, and since then we have been no further. Questions remain about whether or not we are alone in the universe. The UK has been at the forefront of robotic exploration to address that question. Indeed, our space industry built the Mars Rover, which will be launched in 2020, and I am very excited that later this week I shall be able to announce a competition related to that mission. We want to continue to be at the forefront of the next human exploration missions, working alongside NASA and the European Space Agency, but space is also a fundamental part of our economic future. The UK space sector is growing. It is worth about £13.7 billion to the economy according to current estimates, and it employs more than 38,000 people across the country.
As is set out in the Government’s Industrial Strategy, we are working with industry to increase the UK’s share of the global space market from 6.5% to 10% by 2030. The sector has grown at an average of more than 8% every year over the last decade, and three times faster than the average sector over the last five years. Space is a growth sector not only in its own right but as part of our “critical national infrastructure”, underpinning all other key industrial sectors including agritech, automotive, aerospace, maritime and energy. Our space sector is one of the most innovative in the world. It is a world leader in small satellite technology, telecommunications, robotics and Earth observation. For example, we build 25% of the world’s telecommunication satellites and our universities are some of the best in the world for space science.
This week the UK has seized an opportunity to capture a share of the emerging global market for small satellite launch. The Government are working to create  the capability and conditions for commercial spaceflight to thrive in the UK. The Government’s industrial strategy includes support for a £50 million programme to kick-start small satellite launch and sub-orbital flight from UK spaceports. Funding will be used to support the first launches from the UK and to deliver a programme of work to realise benefits across the country.
The Government have made announcements this week which underpin our commitment to the sector. A £2.5 million grant has been announced for a vertical spaceport site in Sutherland, on the north coast of Scotland. That the first ever satellite launch from the UK could be from Scottish soil, highlights our commitment to the Union. With the support of £29 million pound of industrial strategy funding, Lockheed Martin and Orbex will be the first companies to set up operations in Sutherland, delivering capable commercial and globally competitive small satellite launch services. Not only does the UK have the technical skills and capability, we have the geography. We are seeing the biggest growth in the sector in small satellites, which are typically launched into polar orbits. This makes the position of the UK a very favourable launch site.
But it is not just about vertical launch capability. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy also announced a £2 million fund to help horizontal spaceports to progress their plans from our £50 million industrial strategy fund for the UK spaceflight programme. Separately, Newquay airport, Cornwall and Virgin Orbit have signed a memorandum of understanding this week, which is an important and positive milestone towards establishing a leading horizontal commercial launch provider at a UK spaceport. We cannot underestimate the scale of the opportunity here, from entering new markets such as space tourism to transforming our intercontinental travel. The Government are providing support not only through funding, but by putting in place the right regulatory framework to enable commercial success.
I am pleased that the Government are not alone in recognising this opportunity. Up and down the country, ambitious local authorities and private investors are coming together to help build our space capability. The rapid growth at the Goonhilly site in Cornwall is further evidence of the excitement in the sector. As technology evolves and reduces the cost of access to space, there is an exciting opportunity for the UK to thrive in the commercial space age. A sector deal for space aims to build on our global leadership in satellites and applications using space data to create a hub in the UK for new commercial space services. Following the sector’s publication of its “Prosperity from Space” proposal in May, we intend to work with it to explore how a sector deal can drive forward the Government’s industrial strategy. We are also developing world class facilities, including the National Space Propulsion Facility in Westcott and the National Satellite Test Facility in Harwell, as well as business incubators in more than 20 locations to support British start-ups hoping to grow into successful space companies.
The whole of the Government recognise the strategic importance of space and the immense economic opportunities it can bring. In a week where the focus of this House has been on the process of withdrawal from the EU, it is important to recognise that space is an area where we are leading new international partnerships. This is nowhere  better evidenced than our international partnerships programme delivering tele-education and tele-medicine, which provides the backbone of future economic growth. One programme alone reached 17,000 students in Kenya with a 95% improvement in learning outcomes.
The Government are determined that UK companies are at the forefront of this space revolution, and our economy and the people of this country all benefit. I commend the statement to the House.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.
We welcome this investment in the UK space sector. The global space economy, currently valued at about £160 billion, is estimated to be worth £400 billion by 2030. The UK should be leading the way. But why has it taken the Minister so long to come to the House with an announcement that was briefed to the papers three days ago? I hope he does not see the sector as merely a means to positive headlines for a beleaguered Government.
I have characterised Government policy in this area as “lost in space”. While this announcement is a step forward, it certainly does not mean it’s coming home. The Minister is right to talk about the inspirational nature of space and its down to earth economic benefits. At this morning’s Foundation for Science and Technology roundtable, which I attended, NASA’s chief technologist was able to set out the spin-offs from its programme. I look forward to a UK Minister being able to do the same. However, while the Government’s industrial strategy promised £1 billion in space technology investment over four years, this week’s announcement amounts to much less than that. So I ask the Minister: when will the Government announce the release of further funds for space? Will that be impacted by the £5 billion cost of his Galileo replacement? When will the space sector deal be published?
The thriving industry that we all want to see requires a strong regulatory framework and engagement with industry, yet the Space Industry Act 2018, passed earlier this year, is but a skeleton. When will the secondary legislation be in place to provide the regulatory certainty the industry needs? In addition, drones can affect the launch of spacecraft, but they are not covered under the Act. When will the Government bring forward the promised legislation to deal with them?
As Lord Heseltine made clear in his response to the Government’s industrial strategy, the European Space Agency is a great example of proactive industrial intervention by British Government at European level. This Government could learn a lot. Four-fifths of Government investment in space is made through the agency, but the Government’s chaotic Brexit is endangering public and private investment, with Airbus announcing in April that it would relocate work on a €200 million ESA contract from Portsmouth to the continent. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the UK continues to play a leading role in the ESA post Brexit? How will we maintain space sector supply chains, and the exchange of space scientists and engineers on which they depend?
The proposed Sutherland spaceport will be the northernmost operational spaceport in the world. As a Newcastle MP, I am all for going north. However, spaceports are overwhelmingly sited near the equator  where the Earth’s rotational speed is highest, allowing rockets to harness an additional natural boost. Does funding take into account the potential extra costs associated, and what factors were taken into consideration when choosing the location far from the equator, although close to Tory marginals?
As the Minister said, the entire country should benefit from the amazing opportunities posed by space. What steps are the Government taking to ensure the fair regional distribution of space sector supply chains, creating good jobs across the country and ensuring that those jobs should be open to all in a diverse and inclusive space sector?

Sam Gyimah: I thank the Opposition spokesperson for recognising and welcoming the good news this week.
The announcement was made at Farnborough, but my statement demonstrates that there is far more going on in the Government’s space policy than that specific announcement: deeper collaboration with NASA in the US; collaboration with the European Space Agency; investment in our capacity at Harwell; and a space sector deal. So this statement goes far beyond what was announced at Farnborough earlier this week, and it is all good news that I think the House will welcome and, hopefully, celebrate.
On the European Space Agency and our role in Europe, the hon. Lady will know that the ESA is not an EU institution; it is independent of the EU and we are, and will continue to be, a leading member. We see the ESA as key to our strategy for international collaboration—and it is worth recognising that just because it has “European” in its name does not make it an EU institution, as was suggested.
All the announcements made today are in addition to what we will do with regard to Galileo. We have made it clear in our EU negotiations that our first preference would be to continue to participate in all elements of the Galileo system; that would include the security and sensitive parts of the system, but it should also include UK industry’s being able to participate in it. Were that not forthcoming, we have the option of building our own satellite system. The UK is a proud and independent country, and as a lot of the know-how and skills for the Galileo system is from UK-based companies, I am confident that we could build our own. To that end, the Prime Minister has set up a taskforce to look at the feasibility of doing so, and once that information is available it will be made public to the House and more widely.
On why the first space launch in the UK will be in Scotland and not near the equator, I can reassure Members that equator launches tend to be large satellites to geostationary orbit, but the growth we are talking about here is in small satellites and these tend to be polar. That is why we are ideally located as a country to take advantage of that emerging technology.
This is a huge opportunity for this country, and we are determined that all of the UK should benefit. Not only Scotland, but Cornwall and Snowdonia have the potential to benefit, and the announcements this week will allow market development in all of these areas. The private sector will of course ultimately carry this forward, and there is nothing to stop local authorities working with the private sector to capture the benefits of this huge development for our economy.

Crispin Blunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on this extremely welcome statement. As a fellow Surrey MP, he will be only too aware of the importance of the space industry to our county and of the astonishing success of the work in our county for the country. Will he confirm that if the EU remains determined on this astonishing act of self-harm as regards the development of the Galileo project, it will have to bear the long-term costs of the loss of all the British enterprise and expertise in this area, and that we will be free of the immensely bureaucratic allocation of jobs under this European programme, as is reflected in European defence and other space programmes as well? Once we are free to put our expertise within the international alliances where we can get the best possible return on our scientific expertise, so much the better, and in the long term it will be our 27 partners who bear the cost of this astonishing decision.

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Were the UK not to continue to participate in the Galileo programme, not only would the programme be delayed but it would cost EU member states a lot more. Surrey Satellite Technology has been responsible for the cryptography and encryption of the Galileo system, and CGI UK, which has a presence in Surrey, has been responsible for building a number of the satellites. So the expertise and skills necessary to deliver the Galileo system reside in the UK, and were the EU to adopt what I consider to be an irrational position and not allow the UK to fully participate, we would not only take the action we need to take to protect critical national infrastructure, but we would also be at liberty to partner with other countries around the world, not only to develop our own global navigation and satellite system but to develop our space sector.[Official Report, 23 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 6MC.]

Carol Monaghan: As I am a physics teacher, this news is extremely welcome to me. When the Scottish schools go back in approximately three weeks, no doubt the teachers will be telling the pupils all about the spaceport that will be in Scotland.
As a teacher I never imagined we would have such a facility in Scotland, but I never wrote it off as “science fiction” as a certain Tory MSP did last summer. I have had the privilege of visiting Kennedy space centre and the economic and educational opportunities are immense; I hope we will see similar at the A’ Mhòine site.
But space also drives innovation that is critical for other sectors. At present Scotland is home to 18% of the UK’s space sector jobs. It has a thriving satellite industry, Glasgow and Strathclyde universities are training the future space physicists and engineers, and the Scottish physics curriculum has been tailored towards space. So I say to the Minister that this is not about the ambition of a certain US President or commitment to the Union; it is about the fact that the A’ Mhòine peninsula in Sutherland is perfectly placed both in terms of its geographical position for vertical launches, because very few places allow that to take place, and in terms of the educational and manufacturing environment I have described.
There are, however, other spaceports around the UK that could support horizontal launch. What specific steps is the Minister taking with these sites to ensure that the ambition is not isolated, and that many can benefit? What recent conversations has the Minister  had with the ESA regarding the exclusion of UK companies from Galileo? They need the answers to that now. Finally, may I ask the Minister for an update on the liability cap? Unless that cap is in place, Clyde-built satellites will still be launched elsewhere.

Sam Gyimah: It is highly unusual to get welcoming remarks from the Scottish National party, and I am tempted to just bank them and sit down.
We are very aware that Prestwick is home to innovative launch companies like Orbital Access and is close to Glasgow’s world-leading small satellite industry, and that Snowdonia is a leading site for remotely piloted vehicles and autonomous testing. We want all of the UK to benefit from this huge technological development. That is why we announced additional grants this week, so that they can bid for them to develop the market in their area and make a success of space.

Mark Pritchard: On Galileo and a possible replacement satellite system, is it not in the EU’s security interests as well as our own national security interests for the EU to continue to work together collaboratively with UK industry, and in particular the space sector?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend puts his finger on why the situation with Galileo is so hugely frustrating. Only about two months ago we worked very closely with the French Government on military strikes in Syria, so the idea that the UK somehow cannot be trusted on sensitive security matters is totally for the birds. Our future participation, if we were to participate, is dependent on our ability to independently ensure the integrity of the system, so that we can rely on it for strategic defence and security uses. That is why the UK has put forward its red lines, but I agree that there is huge benefit in mutual co-operation and the Commission would do well to take the rational position that that is in our mutual security interests.

Liz Kendall: Leicester is a world leader in space research and engineering, working with NASA and partners across the world. Our new space park will create 3,000 jobs—I hope the Minister will visit us one day. He says he is frustrated with the EU’s reaction on Galileo, but I have heard nothing practical from him about what he will do to protect the Airbus jobs directly related to Galileo in Leicester and to ensure the free movement of EU scientists and researchers, who are so vital to this critical industry of the future.

Sam Gyimah: I am very aware of Leicester’s leading position in space research and science research, and I am looking forward to visiting the university shortly to discuss some of these matters. In terms of what the Government are doing specifically with Galileo, I am in close contact with all the UK companies involved in the programme, and a taskforce is looking at the feasibility of building our own satellite system. That would obviously deliver contracts for UK-based companies. There is also the space sector deal that we are bringing forward shortly, alongside huge investment in research and development, all of which could benefit the UK companies that have huge expertise in this area. So I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are not sitting down and taking this lightly.

Vicky Ford: A lot of the UK has a hosepipe ban at the moment, but in Chelmsford, Teledyne e2v is inventing a gravity sensor that will go on a small satellite and be able to look at water reserves underneath the earth. This is the future. When will we be able to launch small satellites from the UK?

Sam Gyimah: I expect that to be possible from the early 2020s, given the huge and historic announcement today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am not knowledgeable about these important matters, but if my memory serves me, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is concerned principally with the vertical, rather than the horizontal.

Jamie Stone: Indeed I am, Mr Speaker. I welcome the announcement that the spaceport will be in my constituency. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am gratified that so many Members have come into the Chamber to hear me ask this question. [Laughter.] On behalf of my constituents, I thank the UK Government for making this decision. Jobs do not exactly grow on trees in my constituency, and this will be, to coin a phrase, a boost to the local economy. It means that quality jobs will take off.
I have three questions. First, will Orbex and Lockheed Martin be encouraged to start employing local people, and perhaps apprentices, as soon as possible? Secondly, there is great potential for putting satellites into orbit on behalf of other countries that do not have such facilities. The UK could make a lot of money out of that. Will the Minister assure me that Her Majesty’s Government will flex every sinew to get this business? Finally, Viscount Thurso chairs VisitScotland, and there is enormous on-land tourism potential involved in this project. Will Her Majesty’s Government please work closely with VisitScotland to ensure that visitors come to my constituency to see the first rocket taking off?

Sam Gyimah: I am very pleased that Sutherland is getting a big blast from this announcement. Apprentices are already employed by the companies involved in this, and we will do everything we can to work with the local authority to make this a commercial success.

Chris Skidmore: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement on this matter. As part of the new space sector deal, will he recognise the importance of research and development, particularly in materials technology? With that in mind, may I extend an invitation to him as Science Minister to come to the National Composites Centre and the Bristol and Bath Science Park to see the excellent work that is being done there in this regard?

Sam Gyimah: I would be delighted to accept that invitation. I agree with my hon. Friend that wider research and development is critical to success in space. That is why this Government have increased R&D spending more than any previous Government have done.

Stephen Morgan: We have heard reports that the space industry has developed proposals for a sector deal, but may I press the Minister to confirm when that sector deal will be agreed and published?

Sam Gyimah: Very shortly.

Michelle Donelan: I welcome today’s statement. This really is an exciting time for the UK’s space sector. Will my hon. Friend tell me what else the Government are doing to benefit the space industry, as this will be of particular interest to my constituents who work at the Corsham Airbus site?

Sam Gyimah: There is a huge amount of investment. I have mentioned the space sector deal and other investment in R&D that companies across the country with the expertise to benefit our space sector could do well out of.

Alex Sobel: More than 50% of UK satellite exports go into the European single market. How will the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and the Trade Bill, both of which we discussed this week, affect the free-flowing movement of components into and out of the single market?

Sam Gyimah: I have been speaking to lots of companies in the UK that deal in the satellite market. It is a global market, and there are huge global opportunities, including in the EU. The sector will continue to succeed, even when we leave the EU.

Tom Pursglove: What benefit does my hon. Friend believe this sector will bring to the UK economy in the decades ahead? Does he believe that there will be direct benefits for our existing industrial supply chains, such as the steel industry?

Sam Gyimah: The space sector, in addition to being part of our critical national infrastructure, underpins our value in the economy to the tune of £250 billion. This is not just about pushing the frontiers of human knowledge; it is also about creating jobs and helping to power our economy forward. That is why this investment announcement is so important.

Patrick Grady: I have a feeling that we are about to witness some rocket launches long before anything takes off from a site in Sutherland. Given the contribution that Glasgow makes to the space industry—more satellites are manufactured there than anywhere else in Europe, and pioneering research takes place in the space institute at the University of Glasgow in my constituency—what discussions will the Minister be having with university space institutes, to ensure that they can access funding as a result of today’s announcement and that they are fully involved as this project moves forward?

Sam Gyimah: I am planning a trip to Scotland before the end of this month, and I will be discussing exactly those sorts of things with the universities.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting me this opportunity, first to pay tribute to the men and women of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who have done an outstanding job over the last two years. I am very proud that we have rallied the world against Russia’s barbaric use of chemical weapons, with an unprecedented 28 countries joining together to expel 153 spies in protest at what happened in Salisbury. We have rejuvenated the Commonwealth with a superb summit that saw Zimbabwe back on the path to membership and Angola now wanting to join. As I leave, we are leading global campaigns against the illegal wildlife trade and in favour of 12 years of quality education for every girl, and we have the Union flag going up in nine new missions in the Pacific, the Caribbean and Africa, and more to come. We have overtaken France to boast the biggest diplomatic network of any European country.
None of this would have been possible without the support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Everyone who has worked with her will recognise her courage and resilience, and it was my privilege to collaborate with her in promoting global Britain, a vision for this country that she set out with great clarity at Lancaster House on 17 January last year: a country eager, as she said, not just to do a bold, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, out of the customs union and out of the single market, but to do new free trade deals around the world. I thought that was the right vision then; I think so today.
But in the 18 months that have followed, it is as though a fog of self-doubt has descended. Even though our friends and partners liked the Lancaster House vision—it was what they were expecting from an ambitious partner, what they understood—and even though the commentators and the markets liked it—the pound soared, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have observed—we never actually turned that vision into a negotiating position in Brussels. We never made it into a negotiating offer. Instead, we dithered. We burned through our negotiating capital. We agreed to hand over a £40 billion exit fee with no discussion of our future economic relationship, we accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court over key aspects of the withdrawal agreement and, worst of all, we allowed the question of the Northern Irish border, which had hitherto been assumed on all sides to be readily soluble, to become so politically charged as to dominate the debate—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The statement by the right hon. Gentleman must be heard, and by long-standing convention, it is heard with courtesy and without heckling.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful, Mr Speaker.
No one on either side of this House or anywhere wants a hard border. We could not construct one if we tried. However, there certainly can be different rules north and south of the border to reflect the fact that there are two different jurisdictions. In fact, there already are. There can be checks away from the border and technical solutions, as the Prime Minister rightly described  at Mansion House, and, in fact, there already are. However, when I and other colleagues—I single out my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—proposed further technical solutions to make customs and regulatory checks remotely, those proposals were never even properly examined, as if such solutions had become intellectually undesirable in the context of the argument. After the December joint report, whose backstop arrangement we were all told was entirely provisional and never to be invoked, it somehow became taboo even to discuss technical fixes.
After 18 months of stealthy retreat, we have come from the bright certainties of Lancaster House to the Chequers agreement. We can compare them side by side. Lancaster House said that laws will once again be made in Westminster. Chequers says that there will be “ongoing harmonisation” with the common EU rulebook. Lancaster House said that it would be wrong to comply with EU rules and regulations
“without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are.”
Chequers now makes us rules takers. Lancaster House said that we do not want
“anything that leaves us half-in, half-out… We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.”
Chequers says that we will remain in lockstep on goods and agri-foods and much more besides, with disputes ultimately adjudicated by the European Court of Justice.
Far from making laws in Westminster, there are large sectors in which Ministers will have no power to initiate, innovate or even deviate. After decades in which UK Ministers have gone to Brussels and expostulated against costly EU regulation, we are now claiming that we must accept every jot and tittle for our economic health—with no say of our own and no way of protecting our businesses and entrepreneurs from rules that may be not in their interests. My right hon. Friend Chancellor was asked to identify the biggest single opportunity from Brexit. After some thought, he said “regulatory innovation.” Well, there may be some regulatory innovation post Brexit but, alas, it will not be coming from the UK, and certainly not in those areas. We are volunteering for economic vassalage, not just in goods and agri-foods, but we will be forced to match EU arrangements on the environment, social affairs and much else besides. Of course, we all want high standards, but I say to my hon. Friends that it is hard to see how the Conservative Government of the 1980s could have done their vital supply-side reforms with those freedoms taken away.
The result of accepting the EU’s rulebook, and of our proposal for a fantastical Heath Robinson customs arrangement, is that we have much less scope to do free  trade deals, which the Chequers paper actually acknowledges and which we should all acknowledge. If we pretend otherwise, we continue to make the fatal mistake of underestimating the intelligence of the public, saying one thing to the EU about what we are really doing and saying another thing to the electorate. Given that in important ways this is BINO or Brino or “Brexit in name only”, I am of course unable to support it, as I said in the Cabinet session at Chequers, and I am happy to be able to speak out against it now.
It is not too late to save Brexit. We have time in the negotiations. We have changed tack once, and we can change again. The problem is not that we failed to make the case for a free trade agreement of the kind spelt out at Lancaster House—we have not even tried. We must try now, because we will not get another chance to get this right. It is absolute nonsense to imagine, as I fear some of my colleagues do, that we can somehow afford to make a botched treaty now, and then break and reset the bone later on. We have seen even in these talks how the supposedly provisional becomes eternal.
We have the time, I believe the PM has the support of Parliament—remember the enthusiasm for Lancaster House and for Mansion House—and it was clear last night that there is no majority for going back to the customs union. With good will and common sense, we can address concerns about the Northern Irish border and all other borders. We have fully two and a half years to make the technical preparations, along with the preparations for a World Trade Organisation outcome, which we should now accelerate. We should not and need not be stampeded by anyone, but let us explicitly aim once again for the glorious vision of Lancaster House: a strong, independent, self-governing Britain that is genuinely open to the world, not the miserable permanent limbo of Chequers and not the democratic disaster of “ongoing harmonisation” with no way out and no say for the UK.
We need to take one decision now before all others, and that is to believe in this country and in what it can do, because the UK’s admirers—there are millions if not billions of them across the world—are fully expecting us to do what we said, to take back control, to be able to set new standards for technologies in which we excel, to behave not as rules takers but as great independent actors on the world stage, and to do proper free trade deals for the benefit and prosperity of the British people. That was the vision of Brexit that we fought for, that was the vision that the Prime Minister rightly described last year and that is the prize that is still attainable. There is time, and if the Prime Minister can fix that vision before us once again, I believe that she can deliver a great Brexit for Britain with a positive, self-confident approach that will unite this party, unite this House and unite the country as well.

POINTS OF ORDER

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your advice and help in getting a clear understanding of the circumstances in which a Member can seek parliamentary time to make a statement and the circumstances in which that would be granted. You will agree that it is rare for a Member to make a personal statement explaining their resignation, just as it is rare for a Member securing the services of a photographer to record for posterity the signing of their resignation letter at a remarkably empty desk. Would it have been in order, for instance, for a Member or Minister to have sought to make a personal statement to apologise for endangering a British citizen detained abroad, to apologise for repeating financial claims about NHS funding that had been comprehensively demolished by an independent, respected, authoritative body, or to explain what involvement they had in a campaign that has been heavily fined for breaking electoral rules—

John Bercow: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I indulged him and allowed him to develop his thinking.

Andrew Bridgen: Too much.

John Bercow: Well, maybe I erred on the side of generosity. I will treat of the point in more detail, because it is of importance to the House, but let me say two things to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
The right hon. Gentleman, the former Foreign Secretary, was absolutely in order to request that he be allowed to make a personal statement, and utterly in order also in its delivery. Secondly—forgive me, colleagues, but it is important for the authority of the House that this point be made—I, too, was absolutely right to allow him to make that personal statement, and it would have been quite wrong for me to seek to stand in his way.
Good order has applied but, in so far as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is interested not in point scoring, as I am sure he is not, but in asking a genuine question of the Chair, let me say to him on the point of procedure that it is the long-standing practice of the House that Members may make a personal statement with the leave of the Speaker. It is not especially common in recent times for such requests to be made, but when they are made, it is right that they should be acceded to by the Chair.
Moreover, I note that the former Foreign Secretary, former Leader of the House and former Deputy Prime Minister, the late Sir Geoffrey Howe, resigned on 1 November 1990—I remember it well—and delivered a personal statement on 13 November 1990, so nothing disorderly, nothing irregular and, in procedural terms, nothing objectionable has occurred. I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and it was perfectly legitimate for him to raise the point of order, but I think it right that I leave it there.

Mark Pritchard: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I will be generous to the hon. Gentleman, because to stray would be to misbehave, and I do not think he would misbehave. I cannot believe he would.

Mark Pritchard: Mr Speaker, you are always generous. You will know there are very clear rules in this House on the issue of sub judice. I seek your guidance on whether that applies to British citizens abroad who are currently going through what I think is a bogus judicial system in Iran. I mention that because the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) suggested the former Foreign Secretary had endangered the life of a British citizen, and you will know that the family of that person are rightly very worried about her fate. It is not the right hon. Gentleman’s place to make party political capital when somebody is facing a bogus judicial system in Iran.

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I respect the sincerity with which he speaks and the extensive interest he takes in international affairs. What I would say to him, in all seriousness, is that the responsibility of the Chair for oversight of the sub judice rule applies in the context of cases in the British courts. I am satisfied that nothing disorderly or threatening to a British judicial process has transpired.
In so far as the hon. Gentleman wanted to make a wider point, I think he knows that he has succeeded in doing so.

Fiona Onasanya: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I think it is on an unrelated matter, and I will take a point of order on an unrelated matter.

Fiona Onasanya: Mr Speaker, I would be grateful for your guidance. I have written to the Prime Minister regarding a constituent of mine who fell afoul of the undercover policing inquiry. I wrote to her on 20 March setting out that, on 12 March 2016, when she was Home Secretary, she established an inquiry into undercover policing. I have not had the courtesy of a reply, and I do not know whether there is anything you can do or any way you can direct me on how to get a response to my letter.

John Bercow: Historically, it has often been effective for Members who have not received a reply, either to a written question or to a letter, to complain about that fact on the Floor of the House. On many such occasions, a reply has then winged its way to the complaining hon. Member with remarkable rapidity.
That was the experience of the late Member of Parliament for Manchester, Gorton. Sir Gerald Kaufman was much given to raising on a point of order the fact that he had not received a reply to a question or a letter, and he would sometimes table a written question asking a Minister when they intended to get round to responding to his question. I was advised by Sir Gerald that that practice was, more often than not, successful. There is a notable lineage here, and the hon. Lady is following in the footsteps of one of her illustrious parliamentary predecessors. If she is still unsuccessful, I have a feeling, knowing her—she is not shy—that she will beat a path to my door to seek counsel on how further to proceed.

BILL PRESENTED

Counsellors and Psychotherapists (Regulation) and Conversion Therapy Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies, supported by Mr Nigel Evans, Caroline Lucas, Norman Lamb, Mr Ben Bradshaw, Catherine West, Ged Killen, Jo Stevens, Tonia Antoniazzi, Dr Paul Williams, Daniel Zeichner and Thelma Walker, presented a Bill to provide that the Health and Care Professions Council be the regulatory body for counsellors and psychotherapists; to prohibit conversion therapy; to make related provision for the protection of children and adults; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 252).

ACCESS TO WELFARE  (TERMINAL ILLNESS DEFINITION)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Madeleine Moon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the definition of terminal illness in the Welfare Reform Act 2012; and for connected purposes.
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on motor neurone disease. My husband, my brother-in-law and my mother-in-law all died from motor neurone disease.
Today I am placing an emphasis on motor neurone disease, but there are other conditions that equally apply, and those conditions will be explored on Second Reading. The current definition of “terminally ill” is:
“the person suffers from a progressive disease and the person’s death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months”.
A prognosis of six months or less to live is needed for a clinician to issue a DS1500, which allows claimants to apply for benefits under the special rules for terminal illness. The special rules enable access to disability benefits quickly by fast-tracking applications to the highest level of benefits payments, which is an issue of paramount importance for people with limited time to live. Some 3,618,000 people claim the personal independence payment, with only 3%, or 109,000, claiming under the special rules process.
My Bill recognises that the six-month eligibility criteria to access the DS1500 are far too restrictive. Department for Work and Pensions figures show that, as of April 2018, there were 1,565 PIP claims from people with motor neurone disease, and only 650, or around 42% of them, had claimed via the special rules.
As parliamentarians, we have all met terminally ill people who have failed to access benefits via the standard process: people under immense emotional and physical stress, people coming to terms with their terminal illness diagnosis, people having to navigate their way through the burdensome and time-consuming benefits process, facing distress, anxiety and fear, which will increase with the roll-out of universal credit. A person who does not qualify under the six-month special rules faces the prospect of having to attend an interview with a work coach to discuss their aspirations for work, and having to sign up to a claimant commitment, which is highly inappropriate for an individual who will never return to work.
Our current assessment process is capability driven: “Can you walk? Make a cup of tea? Put your socks on?” This results in high scores for those with physically identifiable limitations such as a spinal injury, but it does not recognise an unpredictable, progressive, degenerative condition for which no treatment is available to mitigate the progression of the disease. The change I propose will, only for the terminally ill, provide access to benefits driven by a clinical diagnosis.
The current six-month definition of terminal illness is problematic for unpredictable conditions such as MND. A third of people with MND die within a year of diagnosis and half will die within two years. Identifying  those who are likely to die quickly and those who will live longer is very difficult—indeed, it is impossible. Allowing medical professionals to determine whether an illness is terminal would give terminally ill people the chance to access the benefits they need quickly and with dignity.
Earlier this year, the all-party group took evidence from James Douglas, who was diagnosed with MND just before his 30th birthday. He had recently moved into a new home with his partner and very young son, but he was then told he would not see his 32nd birthday. James was struggling at work and was forced to reduce his hours, and the financial implications for his family were crushing. He went through the arduous process of claiming PIP and was awarded zero points in every category of his claim—weeks later he was given a DS1500 by his consultant.
Martin Burnell also has MND. He described to MPs how he received zero points in his universal credit assessment and was told to seek work, despite struggling to walk, breathe and talk. A DS1500 came from his consultant, despite his GP telling him it could be accessed only by people with cancer—that is an all too common belief. The Department for Work and Pensions recently wrote to Martin asking whether he wanted to retrain and learn a new skill.
Those are not isolated cases, and far too many people with terminal conditions have had to endure an incredibly stressful time accessing benefits. People with terminal conditions should not suffer the anxiety of completing lengthy details about capability or attend face-to-face assessments when a clinical judgment can show they are terminally ill. The current definition of “terminal illness” has created variation in how it is interpreted and discrepancies in doctors’ willingness to submit a DS1500 for people with terminal conditions. Some interpret the definition broadly, whereas others feel that the current criteria restrict their ability to support special rules applications. The change proposed is modest, but it has the potential to help many. It is shocking that terminally ill people and their doctors have at times been challenged by assessors on whether a claimant has six months to live or not. Astonishingly, 13 out of 21 health care professionals who gave evidence to the all-party group said that assessors had contacted them to question the validity of the DS1500.
This Bill seeks to reflect the changes to the definition of “terminal illness” recently announced in Scotland; there has been agreement on removing the time limit of having a life expectancy of six months or less in order for someone to be considered “terminal”. Instead, the clinical judgment of a registered medical practitioner will determine whether a person is terminally ill. When there are no effective disease-mitigating treatments, and disease is progressing rapidly, death becomes inevitable. Doctors know they cannot certify with accuracy “death within six months”, and such a time statement is cruel to the patient and their family, who are struggling to come to terms with the illness and with dying.
By allowing a clinical judgment to determine whether an individual has a terminal illness, we will create a much fairer and compassionate system. To support clinicians when determining a terminal diagnosis, the proposals in Scotland allow the chief medical officer, in consultation with registered medical practitioners, to set definitions in regulations. They define when an  individual has a diagnosed condition that has no further treatment available and will lead to death. Both the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer in Scotland have reviewed and fully support the amendment in Scotland as the best way to achieve timely support for those with a terminal illness.
This Bill will create parity with Scotland, generate consistency across the UK and reflect society’s recognition that our benefits system should support, not challenge or interrogate, the terminally ill. The Bill will reflect the recommendations of the independent review of PIP in Northern Ireland, which supported the changes to how terminal illness should be defined. There is support for this from the medical community; 30 leading neurologists have called on the Government to emulate the changes in Scotland. Dr Nik Sharma, a consultant neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery told the all-party group that despite his years as a specialist treating people with MND, he cannot predict its progression or the life expectancy of people with the disease. Other specialists have told me that it is difficult to predict when someone has six months left to live with cancer, and it is close to impossible with unpredictable conditions such as heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
We have consulted widely. I have worked closely with the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Marie Curie and the Royal College of General Practitioners. I have sought the views of the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer for England. Palliative care specialists have agreed to liaise in helping to produce guidance on a definition ahead of Second Reading. In Scotland, these changes received cross-party support, and we have that same support here.
Before coming into this House, I spent many years helping terminally ill people claim benefits. I cared for my husband Steve, and can attest to the mental and emotional chaos of dealing with a terminal illness. The unknown time you have must not be spent worrying about accessing benefits or keeping a roof over your head; it must be spent in love, laughter, and taking the painful journey together with dignity and compassion. It is time for this Government and this Parliament to support and ease this journey.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Madeleine Moon, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Frank Field, Norman Lamb, Dr Philippa Whitford, Ian Paisley, Mark Tami, Peter Aldous, Stephen Twigg, Chris Evans, Hywel Williams and Lady Hermon present the Bill.
Mrs Madeleine Moon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be a read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed (Bill 253).

Lindsay Hoyle: I now have to announce the results of today’s seven deferred Divisions. The first six relate to draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) Orders. In respect of the first question relating to Armenia, the Ayes were 535 and the Noes were 3, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the second question, relating to Central America, the Ayes were 534 and the Noes were 3, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the third question relating Cuba, the Ayes were 534 and the Noes were 3, so the Ayes have it. In respect of  the fourth question relating to Canada, the Ayes were 534 and the Noes were 3, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the fifth question relating to Australia, the Ayes were 534 and the Noes were 3, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the sixth question relating to New Zealand, the Ayes were 536 and the Noes were 3, so the Ayes have it. Finally, in respect of the question relating to Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) the Ayes were 311 and the Noes were 262, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

DOMESTIC GAS AND ELECTRICITY (TARIFF CAP) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO.3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))
That the following provisions shall apply to the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 6 March 2018 (Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill: Programme) and 30 April 2018 (Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendment
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendment shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Claire Perry.)
Question agreed to.

DOMESTIC GAS AND ELECTRICITY (TARIFF CAP) BILL

Consideration of Lords amendment.
After Clause 8

Ongoing relative tariff differential

Claire Perry: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Claire Perry: As Members will know, the Bill has received very broad and very strong cross-party support during its passage through this House. I thank all of those who have spoken, who have worked behind the scenes, who have lobbied and who have voted for a very important piece of legislation. I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who is not in her place, for her excellent stewardship of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which contains Members from all parties, and for her continued support on the Bill. The Committee did some excellent work during the Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny.
I also extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and the Labour Front Bench team for their extremely constructive approach to this Bill and for helping us to develop an amendment that we will come on to debate in a moment.
First, we must consider the amendment that was made in the other place about what will be done to protect consumers when the price cap comes to an end. That is an extremely important question. As the Government have made clear, the price cap is a temporary intervention to protect consumers on standard variable and default tariffs while other reforms continue apace to bring about the conditions for effective competition in the retail market. I understand the concerns, which have been raised by Members from all parts of the House and by Members in the other place, that there is a risk that some features of the market may remain that will need to be addressed. For instance, as the energy market is reformed, it is absolutely vital that the protection of vulnerable customers in this market is kept under review, and action taken if necessary to afford those customers the protections they need.
There are also concerns about the possible return of practices such as tease and squeeze, which is essentially enticing people onto cheap fixed tariff deals only to move them on to higher tariff deals when the fixed period ends. I agree wholeheartedly that we must seek to end those practices. However, introducing a requirement such as the Lords amendment seeks to do, which essentially commits us to an indefinite price cap, is not the appropriate solution. Instead, the Government propose amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, which will ensure that Ofgem must conduct a review before the end of the price-cap period into the pricing practices of suppliers and, in particular, identify whether there are categories  of customers who are currently paying, or who may in future be at risk of paying, excessive charges for standard variable and default tariffs.
In reviewing the practices of suppliers and identifying whether consumers are paying excessive charges, the regulator must consider whether there are consumers who will be excessively negatively affected when they move from fixed rates to standard variable tariffs—the tease and squeeze problem—and also whether vulnerable customers continue to require protection. If it is the regulator’s view that protections are indeed required, then the amendment says that necessary steps must be taken to provide those protections, using a broad set of existing powers under the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989.
It is the Government’s view that amendment (a) therefore futureproofs something that we all care so strongly about in this place—the protection of consumers from excessive charges, particularly on SVT and default rate tariffs, and rightly provides in the Bill the necessary impetus and discretion to the regulator to consider the most appropriate response to those excessive tariffs under its existing powers.

Stephen Kerr: Let me speak in relation to the amendment to the amendment. Amendment (a) says:
“customers who appear to the Authority”—
that is Ofgem—
“to be vulnerable by reason of their financial or other circumstances are in need of protection.”
How will the data be made available for anyone to be able to make that assessment, because, currently, there is a restriction in the availability of that data to pinpoint the help that is necessary?

Claire Perry: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and his doughty championing of consumers. He will be aware that the Government have taken through another piece of legislation, which was required to ensure that the regulator can work with Government datasets in order accurately to pinpoint vulnerable customers. I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to know that if that legislation has not yet received Royal Assent, it will do imminently. I look to my officials to ensure that that is the case.

Jim Cunningham: Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister; will Ofgem carry out a review constantly, or will it be a one-off review with a time limit?

Claire Perry: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the original provisions in the Bill give Ofgem very broad powers, from the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, to implement the cap and then to review it as often as Ofgem feels is necessary. When the cap is operating, it can be reviewed many times. We have instructed Ofgem to conduct a review when the cap ends to ensure that the groups of customers identified can be helped. My understanding is that there is nothing in Ofgem’s existing powers that will prohibit it from doing the same thing in future. The regulator was in the past given extremely broad powers under the gas and electricity Acts, and it would be within its discretion to carry out  such reviews. However, across all parties we felt it was important to put on the face of this Bill, which is the first piece of legislation to introduce these sorts of tariff caps and to empower further the regulator to use its powers, the requirement to carry out the initial review.

Ian Murray: On the same theme, what powers does the regulator currently have to ensure that energy companies are not artificially inflating prices ahead of the Bill coming into force?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman refers to the regrettable series of price increases that we have seen from all the major, big six energy companies. Prices will of course go up because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the wholesale price of gas in particular doubled—I believe; I will make sure the record is correct—in the last six months. The regulator can always define price rises as excessive, but the point of this very welcome cap is that those who are particularly vulnerable and who are on standard variable and default tariffs—often people who are elderly, perhaps less well-educated and furthest from the digital market, in which we all compete to switch—will be protected without having to switch. Indeed, the work that Ofgem is currently undertaking to ensure that the cap is set at a fair level will be vital to making sure that those protections come forward.
Amendment (a) will ensure that the legacy of the Bill, of which we should be extremely proud, is not undone by a return to business as usual by those suppliers that have thought up or carry out additional practices, such as tease and squeeze. I thank Members of this House, including Members from the Opposition Front-Bench team, for helping to create the amendment, which we believe is the most appropriate response to the concerns raised by members in this House and in the other place. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) nodding during my speech. Along with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and others, he has been vital in driving this issue up to the top of the Government’s agenda and making sure that we get the Bill and this amendment right. I offer huge thanks to my hon. Friend and the others who have been involved.

James Heappey: Will the Minister confirm that while the Bill has had to take this unexpected second lap of this place, Ofgem has been hard at work on its preparations for enacting what is likely to be in the Bill when it is passed? Will she join me in advising any energy companies that are considering legal action over the summer that it would be rather inappropriate for them to get in the way of legislation passed in this place quite legitimately?

Claire Perry: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it enables me to say four things. First, I am grateful to the noble Members at the other end of the House, because legislation is always better when it is scrutinised carefully. I think amendment 1 is helpful, so I am not unhappy to have the chance to talk about it.
Secondly, the new chair of Ofgem, Martin Cave, who will shortly take up his post, is a brilliant campaigner in support of the idea that customers should benefit from this regulated energy market. Indeed, I think he proposed the original idea of a tariff price cap. His appointment  and the Bill will both help to strengthen Ofgem’s powers. Members will know that he wrote to the Chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—I think it was only last week—setting out Ofgem’s determination to use its powers as widely as possible.
Thirdly, I reassure my hon. Friend that I have come to the House from a meeting with Ofgem, at which we discussed its progress on the price cap. That is well under way, and Ofgem has an extremely good team working on it. Ofgem has already published various technical papers setting out the methodology behind the cap calculation, and it intends to publish in full the details of that in very short order. That will give everybody a chance to scrutinise the cap and make sure that there is nothing untoward.
Fourthly, I wrote to the chairmen of the big six—I think they are all men—last week setting out that the Government would take an extremely dim view of companies that sought to frustrate the introduction of the cap, for which we have all worked so hard, by some sort of legal challenge; and that instead they should work with Government in this exciting time in the energy markets and look to their own activities to see how they can drive down costs, and drive up efficiency and customer service.

Rebecca Pow: On that note, does the Minister believe that the Bill will narrow down competition, and thereby affect prices, or increase it? Competition is generally viewed as good for a market, because one tends to get lower prices as companies try to attract customers.

Claire Perry: I strongly believe in competitive, well-regulated free markets. Indeed, in this market there are now more than 60 energy suppliers, all bidding for our business. I have recently switched again to a company that appears to be offering a very good green tariff. However, the problem, and the reason for the Bill, is that there is a very large group of customers who are sticky—who stay on expensive standard variable and default tariffs because they do not know how to switch, or they are not aware that they can. We can all think of grandparents, parents and others who fall into that category—it also includes young people who are renting accommodation—and they tend to be the furthest from the white heat of the switching market.
Understanding what the Bill does to the economic conditions in the market is, of course, an important part of Ofgem’s role. To go back to the original CMA report, however, we also know that the current pricing practices result in £1.3 billion of what it described as “excessive” returns, and we expect that number to come down. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to make sure that the House was aware of that.
It is important that we have a level playing field for companies in the market. I have received representations stating that the customer accounts threshold for offering warm home discounts and ECO should be dropped to ensure that more companies can offer them to customers. We introduced legislation recently to reduce that threshold from 200,000 to 150,000, in increments of 50,000. Customers in receipt of warm home discounts will have a lower chance of losing them if they switch.[Official Report, 4 September 2018, Vol. 646, c. 2MC]
I hope the House agrees that amendment (a) is the most appropriate response to the concerns that have been raised, and that it will be welcomed by Members in this place and the other place. I hope that we will be able to move swiftly on this issue and keep our remarkable outbreak of cross-party consensus going, because I think the Bill is an absolutely vital piece of legislation.

John Redwood: Can the Minister give us some indication of the kind of saving we that we could expect from the managed market, as a result of the amendment, compared with where we are at the moment?

Claire Perry: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is referring to the per-household saving. We have been quite careful not to talk about that, because although we can understand that a total maximum excessive disbenefit of £1.3 billion is created by current pricing practices, how much of that is saved and passed on to consumers will depend on all sorts of things, including changes in the wholesale market and the efficiency of companies. I can reassure him, though, that the absolute price cap that was brought in to protect customers on pre-payment meters and those classified as vulnerable has led to savings of about £60 per household since it was introduced. Of course, prices go up, but customers are still better off than they would have been. Our expectation is that both overall and per household, consumers will see bills lower than they would otherwise have been.

James Heappey: Will the Minister reassure the House that she does not see this price cap as “job done” in terms of reducing people’s bills, and that she and her team in BEIS will continue to drive forward innovation in the energy markets so that new tariffs can come forward, and continue to focus on energy efficiency measures so that we can drive down people’s bills in those ways as well?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend uses his great experience in this area to point to this being two halves of an equation in making sure, first, that energy is going into a property at the lowest possible price, and secondly, that consumption is as low as can be.
With ECO now at over £600 million, we are targeting that entirely at fuel poverty. The consultation has closed and we have the responses to come out. There is the whole challenge of getting energy efficiency levels up so that, overall, households are more energy-efficient. I am looking at the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on the Opposition Front Bench. I very much enjoyed a visit to her constituency to see an energy-positive home. That is an incredible innovation funded by her local excellent councillors, looking at how to design homes that return energy to the grid and are cool and lovely to live in. That is the kind of technology and innovation that we want to see.
I hope that we can all agree on this amendment, send it up to be agreed in the other place, and get on and pass the Bill before this place rises, because the regulator has told us that it will need up to five months to calculate the mechanism. It is absolutely vital, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) said, that that  mechanism is absolutely watertight so that energy companies do not seek to frustrate further the introduction of this measure. We want it in place by the end of this year so that people can start saving on their energy bills this winter.

Alan Whitehead: Labour Members are delighted that the Bill to institute an absolute price cap on energy costs is about to pass into law, mechanisms notwithstanding, this afternoon. We are delighted because of the parentage of the Bill, which emanates from the Labour Benches. If hon. Members are worried about the authenticity of the parentage, I can produce a birth certificate: the motion that was debated in this Chamber on a Wednesday afternoon, at exactly this time, on 6 November 2013. It said:
“That this House calls on the Government to freeze electricity and gas prices for 20 months whilst legislation is introduced to ring-fence the generation businesses of the vertically integrated energy companies from their supply businesses, to require all electricity generators and suppliers to trade their power via an open exchange, to establish a tough new regulator with the power to force energy suppliers to pass on price cuts when wholesale costs fall, and to put all over-75-year-olds on the cheapest tariff.”
That motion was in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). When it was debated that afternoon, it did not, I have to say, receive a terribly positive response from the Government of the day.

James Heappey: How times have changed.

Alan Whitehead: Indeed.
Five and a half years later, we are almost there. I hope that the procedures on the market issues that we have discussed during the Bill’s progress ensure that while there is a price cap those issues are addressed so that we can, as the mechanism in the Bill suggests, come out of the price cap with market conditions resolved in a much better way for customers. Indeed, just as was suggested in that motion, the Bill provides for a procedure to declare the market in place, at which time the cap is ended. That could be about 20 months or perhaps three years, but nevertheless there is a mechanism for that.
What happens at the end of cap conditions is important, and that is what the amendments that have come from the other place at the end of the Bill process deal with, rather than the principle of the absolute cap—the central principle of the Bill—which, I am delighted to say, was received in the other place as warmly as in this House. On termination of the cap, the Lords amendment would put in place a relative tariff differential that would limit the price range between the highest and lowest tariff a company can charge—the so-called “tease and squeeze” problem that the Minister mentioned. That would be not within the absolute cap but part of the return to market conditions that would nevertheless shape how the market subsequently works for the benefit of customers.
I am delighted that the Government have responded positively in the shape of their amendment in lieu, which I am pleased to say the Opposition not only were given sight of but had the opportunity to work on in detail, to ensure that between us we had a resolution to the outstanding issue from the other place. We can endorse the amendment and recommend that their lordships consider it a worthy response to the message we received.
The amendment is slightly different, using an Ofgem mechanism to bring about a solution to tariff ratios, but from the amendment’s drafting I am confident that Ofgem would receive the message in no uncertain terms of how it should use its powers, should the report it is required to write before termination of the cap comes about demonstrate a continuing problem in tariff differentials.
The Bill has always had more than a tinge of Labour parentage to it and now its offspring has further elements of Labour input, which I, for one, very much welcome. It is now a Bill that all sides can agree does the right thing on energy prices and how the market works. That signal of unity from all sections of the House sends an important message to all those affected by the legislation—that this is a serious piece of work, which will work, and that we are all determined to make it happen. If the Bill can pass back to the other place for its final procedures on that basis, that will strengthen considerably the efforts that we are embarking on to ensure that prices are maintained in the interests of customers over the next period through the freeze mechanism.
I thank the Minister very much for the constructive and open way in which she has conducted discussions on the Bill hitherto, and I at least note in distinguished messages the input of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), and of course my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, who I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, whose role in the Bill’s parentage should be not underestimated at all; indeed, it should be written up in dispatches.

John Penrose: We are nearly there. With fingers firmly crossed, it looks as though this is the last, or last but one, trot around the track for the Bill before it goes off for Royal Assent. I echo the thanks that have come from all sides for the combined and cross-party efforts to get us here. The fact that everyone is rushing to claim a degree of authorship shows the truth of the old saying that success has many parents, whereas failure is an orphan. Thankfully, this is not a failure.
I was extremely concerned by the Lords amendment as it came to us before the amendment in lieu was tabled. That was not because I disagreed with the principle of a relative cap—in fact, I spoke strongly in favour of relative caps at earlier stages—but because, in trying to install a relative cap, their lordships had made it an open-ended intervention in this market. For people like me—perhaps more on the Conservative side of the House—who are avowed free marketeers, a temporary intervention is very important. An open-ended commitment would create a great deal of unease among many of us, on the grounds that the opportunity for regulatory meddling would be extremely strong, and that the temptation would prove too hard to resist over time.
I am therefore delighted to see the proposed amendment in lieu. Not only does it not add any fresh powers—it asks Ofgem to use its existing powers, giving it a firm and direct mandate from this House that those powers should be used—but it refocuses the Bill. I for one—I do not think I am alone in this—had become a little bit concerned that the Bill had gone a little off track or off topic in its passage through Parliament.
The Bill was proposed in the first place in response to an underlying mischief or immorality—that of “tease and squeeze” behaviour. People could start off on a  razor-keen introductory tariff and then, without taking any firm decisions, they might find that when the tariff came to an end after one or two years, they had in a surreptitious way become liable for a sky-high default tariff. That would happen without their saying yes to anything, because of the tease and squeeze tactics, particularly of the big six. The central behaviour, which is deeply embedded in this market, of taking advantage of people’s loyalty and inertia—their stickiness, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said—was griping everybody and making them feel that customers were being taken advantage of. That was why the Bill was first conceived, and why it rightly garnered so much support throughout the House.
The amendment in lieu brings us back to that central point. It reminds us why we are here and, most importantly, it means that Ofgem will no longer have an excuse to look the other way. We all want this temporary price cap, when it comes to an end, not to be needed any more because the market—the big six in particular, but also the market as a whole—will have learned the error of its ways and will stop behaving in the way that has griped everybody, so that there is no need for further interventions. However, I do not think I am alone in being a little bit cynical and saying that that might not happen, even with all the other interventions and reforms that Ofgem is rightly introducing to try to sharpen competition, improve consumer choice, and both improve the behaviour of suppliers and help us as customers to use our freedoms more actively.
It is just possible that, even after all the changes introduced by Ofgem during the period of the cap, the market is not yet properly reformed. We are all here because Ofgem has in the past refused to use the powers it has. I have had conversations with senior people in Ofgem, as I am sure have many others in the Chamber, asking, “Why don’t you get on with it? Why don’t you use these powers? You’re being weak-willed, and you are pathetically—like wet lettuces—not doing what you are there for. What’s the point of having an economic regulator if you aren’t going to stick up for people who are vulnerable and people who are being taken advantage of?” We all got fed up with arguing that it should do so, and it would not do so, and that is why the Bill came into being. The amendment in lieu should solve that because, for future reference, it should ensure that Ofgem has a backbone statutorily inserted into it.
We all hope that those powers are not needed, and that the reforms designed to sharpen competition mean that they will never be needed, but the amendment in lieu means that they can be used in the future. With any luck, as with a good nuclear deterrent, no one will ever have to press the button, but my goodness me, they will know that they are there. That is the crucial point. With that, I welcome the amendment in lieu. I hope that the message goes out loud and clear to Ofgem that we will not put up with its being weak-willed in the future. It is up to Ofgem to ensure that this market functions properly, not just during the temporary period of the cap, but on an ongoing basis in the future. With any luck, after that none of us will ever have to worry about the energy market’s mispricing again.

Alan Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), and I pay tribute to his work, as well as that of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). The hon. Gentleman lost me a wee bit at the end when he compared the amendment in lieu to the nuclear deterrent. Apart from that, I concurred with his comments.
I will be brief, because there seems to be consensus across the House, and will simply outline my thoughts on the Lords amendment and the Government amendment. When Labour originally tabled the Lords amendment, I chose to abstain because, as I said at the time, I remained unconvinced by their arguments. Labour was against a relative cap, so it seemed anomalous to me to introduce a relative measure on a permanent basis. The risks and arguments are the same about the relative aspect—it really does risk increasing the price of standard variable tariffs and there is a further risk that if that came into operation in the absence of an absolute cap, we might see prices creep up again, which would be counter-productive.
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee was against the absolute cap when it did its pre-legislative scrutiny. Consumer organisations were against it and even the Competition and Markets Authority has outlined where relative aspects have not worked in other sectors, so why would they work in this situation? That was certainly the concern. There seems to be cross-party agreement that an absolute cap is a temporary measure, so this would effectively be a temporary Bill. Why introduce a permanent measure into the Bill?
One good thing about the Lords getting the amendment through is that it has clearly allowed the Government to rethink and it is clear that the Government have worked with the Opposition to strengthen the Bill. They have agreed to introduce these measures, which basically instruct Ofgem to review the operation of the absolute cap and how it affects customers, including the most vulnerable, and to ensure that the companies take action to protect those customers. I welcome the Government’s amendment and, given the cross-party consensus, it is time to get on with it and get the Bill finished, and for the Government to concentrate on getting cheaper energy through renewables and by scrapping nuclear.

Stephen Kerr: I join others in paying tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister in leading the Bill through the House. I also pay tribute to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). There has also been mention of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I agree with much—indeed everything—of what I have heard, including from the Scottish National party spokesman, which is always noteworthy, as I think he would agree.
I want to take this opportunity to comment on the nature of the marketplace because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly mentioned, this is a marketplace where consumers are punished, or at least treated as suckers, by the companies they are loyal to, and that surely cannot be allowed. I am therefore  proud to stand in support of this Bill, and to see it progress quickly from this place to the other place and, very quickly after that, into law. A lot of significant issues have been discussed as the Bill has made progress through pre-scrutiny, Committee and back to the Floor of the House.
I genuinely cannot understand the justification for the Lords amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). The idea that we could legislate in a temporary Bill for an energy market in 2023 seems to me to be quite absurd. Sitting here today, we have no idea what the energy market will even look like in 2023-24. Perhaps the noble Lords have a crystal ball that allows them foresight that we do not enjoy in this House, but somehow I doubt that they do. With the rate of change in the market being what it is, we can comfortably expect that, when we get to the sunset year, 2023-24, the landscape will be much changed from what it is today.
While we have debated many issues on the Bill, I would disappoint the Minister if I did not mention smart meters, as a sideline. I know that the Bill is a temporary measure to fix the energy market, which is badly broken, but it also gives consumers control. It should also give them the right to see how their energy usage is affected by their choice of appliance and how they use their appliances. One way we will do that is through the roll-out of smart meters. I support that but continue to have what I hope are felt to be genuine concerns about the nature of the roll-out and how it is being conducted.
The SMETS1 meters are a poor substitute for the real thing. We have not heard recently how many SMETS2 meters are installed and connected to the Data Communications Company but, bearing in mind the £11 billion cost and that this is a vital part of our national infrastructure for the energy networks of the future, I feel that it is appropriate to mention in passing that we need a stronger handle on where the SMETS2 programme is, its cost and all the issues surrounding it.

James Heappey: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Rushing into the deployment of SMETS2 meters before the technology has been properly proven and the Data Communications Company is fully up and running might lead to a collapse in consumer confidence in smart meters generally, which would have an adverse effect on the smart programme.

Stephen Kerr: I agree, and that is why it is important to discuss the real-time issues surrounding the SMETS2 meter and the future smart meter network, which is so important to the future of our energy market.
In conclusion, at the heart of this issue is the need for lower energy prices, and helping consumers to understand how much energy they are using and how they can save money by changing supplier. I look forward to the day when through an app, or rather, with one click, it will be possible for consumers to make smart choices painlessly. If we do this right—and I think we are—this tariff cap measure can fall away in 2023 without causing any problem, and more consumers will be engaged and able to make the right decisions for their households. We will also be able to see the energy companies properly competing and creating the competitive market that the Bill seeks to create.

James Heappey: What a joy it is to be in this Chamber when consensus abounds, after a couple of days of tearing strips off one other. It is really rather nice to be in here, all agreeing. That has rather characterised the progress of the Bill throughout its time in this place and in the Bill Committee, on which I had the privilege to serve. I think it is right that we seek to remove the amendment that the Lords have sent back, but I am glad that a compromise has been agreed between the two Front-Bench teams and I think that the amendment in lieu that we have proposed is very sensible.
Since the Bill has been delayed by this extra lap in Parliament, I think it is worthwhile to rehearse the arguments once again. The price cap is only a part of the challenge, so I want to add a few other things to the exhortation from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) about smart meters. The Government must push on with those very urgently, because the savings from them will be far greater than the savings that we will achieve for our constituents from this Bill.
First, on decentralised generation, putting storage in behind the meter and aggregated demand-side response, I know that the Minister is looking at what comes after feed-in tariffs when they start to run out next year. I hope that she can see merit in finding a mechanism to replace them that really unlocks the market for people who want to install generation in their homes or businesses, storage, demand response and the capacity that comes from electric vehicles.
Secondly, I hope that we can send a strong signal to industry and the regulator over the delivery of heat as a service. Heat as a service is a huge opportunity for energy efficiency to become the responsibility of the supplier, not out of obligation, but because it sees an opportunity to make bigger margins by providing energy more cheaply and efficiently. If we can make that happen, we will secure huge savings for consumers. Thirdly, as we replace the green deal, let us allow storage to be a part of this so that again people can find savings. Fourthly, on replacing the ECO, the consultation has been completed and responses have been had, and I know that plenty of tech companies have made representations for smart thermostats and other clean tech to be included within the ECO catalogue. Let us make that the case.
We have put in an awful lot of time, in this place, the other place and in Committee, to deliver a saving to our constituents of around £100. That is not to be sniffed at, but we can prove to an awful lot of people that an enduring price cap is not the answer by getting all sorts of other things right at the same time. Energy efficiency, storage, the flexibility of demand response and decentralised generation have the potential to slash bills to a fraction of what they currently are. Let us not let this price cap distract us from the real prize, which is huge savings for our constituents from clean tech.

Rebecca Pow: I welcome the Bill, as it places consumers at its heart. That is really what we are talking about. In particular, I welcome the amendment in lieu, which is a tweak but a valuable tweak that makes the Bill really work. I also reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) said. How wonderful it is to have unity in the Chamber after these last few days. It is welcome and a lovely feeling.

Alex Chalk: It’s quite unsettling.

Rebecca Pow: Quite unsettling, yes.
I believe that pressing for an absolute cap over a relative one is the right way to go. As the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee stated, a relative cap could force cheaper energy tariffs to disappear, harming consumers, not protecting them. That would run counter to the sentiment of the Bill. As we have heard, Ofgem will be given the task of making the cap work effectively with its formula and will be responsible for setting the cap and reviewing it every six months. As outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), it is beholden on Ofgem to get this right and hold people to account, otherwise it will not have been worth while. It is vital that energy companies do not take advantage of any price cap and lift their tariffs to the maximum allowed. As I mentioned earlier, the energy sector needs more price competition to encourage lower prices, and an absolute cap can help to achieve this.
I am delighted that the Government will require the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to protect consumers beyond the end of the energy price cap. Energy companies must not slip back into their old habits as soon as the cap is lifted, putting ordinary people back in the position they were in before the cap and leaving them paying over the odds. The Bill will ensure better value for money for many people who, frankly, have been taken for a ride and been paying over the odds for the self same energy that the person down the road has been getting cheaper.
As the Minister stated, it cannot be fair that between 2012 and 2015 customers paid £1.4 billion more than they ought to have done. In 2016, this escalated to an incredible £2 billion. As I have said before, many of these people fall into the “vulnerable” category. Many are elderly. My constituency and wider Somerset have a great many elderly people. The number of over-75s is set to double in the next 10 years and they could be the  people who would have been adversely affected. The Bill will help them. They are the people who do not switch very often, as are younger people and tenants. My children, in their 20s, have raised this with me. The Bill will help them. It is right that the cap system should be temporary. It is an artificial lever to control the market for a short while and is being applied in the interests of consumers. This is the right way to go, as it will still enable competitiveness in the market, which is essential. We want the market to work better for everybody.
As other Members have said, it is essential for us to engage all the different methods in the energy market, such as smart meters—and we must get them right—and technology, including data-driven technology. What has not been mentioned before, however, is the need to encourage people to use less energy. There are now many devices on the market that we can put in our homes to ensure that we do not waste so much of it, and I shall be presenting a ten-minute rule Bill on that subject fairly soon. We also need even more investment in renewables. If we are to hit our clean growth strategy targets, we must do all those things, and I am delighted to say that the Government are indeed doing them. We are going in absolutely the right direction.
As I have said, I fully support the Government amendment, which will make the Bill really work for those for whom it was designed: the consumers. It is a valuable addition to the Bill, and I congratulate all those who have brought it this far and will make it into law.

John Bercow: Marvellous. The hon. Lady has completed her oration? Yes. [Interruption.] Well, it was an oration. That is a good thing.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment (a), in lieu of Lords amendment 1, agreed to.

Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Dominic Raab: I bet to move,
That this House has considered the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Let me begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). I could not make it into the Chamber, but I listened to his personal statement from my office. I pay tribute to the huge service that he did to our country during his tenure as Foreign Secretary, and also to the passion and optimism with which he spoke in relation to Brexit.
Last week the Government published their White Paper “The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union”. It is a principled and pragmatic plan for the relationship that we wish to build for the future.

Ian Murray: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his promotion to his new role. He mentioned the personal statement made by the former Foreign Secretary in the House a few hours ago. I wonder if he could tell us which parts of it he disagreed with.

Dominic Raab: I was paying tribute, and paying my respects, to the service that my right hon. Friend had done to this country as Foreign Secretary, and admiring the optimism and the passion with which he had spoken, particularly in relation to Brexit. It is not for me to pick at the detail of his statement. I think that all Members, whatever their views on Brexit, recognise the convictions held by other Members on all sides, and in all parties, in relation to this important matter.
As I was saying, the White Paper is a principled and pragmatic plan for the relationship that we wish to build for the future. It delivers on our dual strategic aim of taking back control over our laws, our money and our borders, while preserving and building on the historic ties with our EU friends—such as trade and security—that we all rightly prize.
The White Paper proposes a free trade area for goods to maintain frictionless trade, supported by a common rulebook and a new facilitated customs arrangement, but only for the rules that are necessary to provide frictionless trade at the border. That will help to secure the complex supply chains and just-in-time manufacturing processes that we have developed with the EU over 40 years. It will give businesses certainty and clarity, and will help us to preserve the jobs that thrive on the basis of frictionless trade across the border. Under those arrangements, businesses from Stockholm to Sunderland and from Cardiff to Krakow will be able to rely on smooth procedures to avoid any potential disruption of their livelihoods.
A key component of the free trade area will be our proposal for a facilitated customs arrangement, a business-friendly model that removes the need for new routine customs checks and controls between the UK and the EU while enabling the UK to control its own tariffs to boost trade with the rest of the world. The UK would  apply the EU’s tariffs to goods intended for the EU, and its own tariffs and policy to goods intended for consumption in the UK.

Mike Gapes: I have not yet had a chance to welcome the Secretary of State to his interesting post. What assessment has he made of the EU-Japan trade agreement that has just been announced? Will he take this opportunity to welcome it as a potential boost to trade for our country, and confirm that the Government are not planning to take us out of that arrangement?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. That is a draft agreement, which has not yet entered into force. We will of course be champions of global free trade with precisely those emerging markets of the future, from Asia to Latin America, which is where the jobs and opportunities will come from. Like him, I want to see more of that. In fact, one of the advantages of leaving the EU is that we will be able to have an even more energetic and liberal approach to free trade.

Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend was talking about the facilitated customs arrangement. Before Monday, it was already going to be difficult enough to persuade the EU that it was in its interests for us to collect tariffs on its behalf, but after Monday’s vote the arrangements must be reciprocal. Is there the remotest chance of us persuading the EU to collect tariffs on our behalf on some distant border? It just will not happen. It’s dead in the water, isn’t it?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend mentions the earlier approach. Under the earlier proposals for a new customs partnership, businesses would only receive tariff rebates after tracking goods through the entire supply chain to the point of final consumption in the UK. In contrast, the FCA—I hope this addresses his point—will be an upfront system. That means that most businesses, the overwhelming majority, would pay the right tariff to begin with. Other businesses could claim a tariff repayment as soon as possible in the supply chain. We will agree with the EU the circumstances in which repayments can be granted. As the White Paper makes clear, we will negotiate a reciprocal tariff revenue formula, taking into account goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and goods destined for the EU entering via the UK.

Jim Cunningham: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with companies in this country, such as Jaguar Land Rover, regarding their concerns about Brexit? What reassurances has he given them, or is it too early to ask him that question because he is fairly new in the job? I congratulate him on his appointment.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is being far too kind, but I appreciate it. I have already met business leaders, from the Federation of Small Businesses to the CBI. The devil will of course be in the detail as we negotiate, but we have received a positive and constructive response. I will be meeting more business leaders on Friday, so perhaps next week I can fill him in further. I think it is widely understood that we have a principled but pragmatic and flexible approach that will preserve  frictionless trade. The key advantage of the model we have is that it protects the UK-EU supply and value chains, and the businesses he refers to which rely on them. As well as supporting business, the approach would meet our shared commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland in a way that respects the autonomy of the EU without harming the UK’s constitutional and economic integrity.

John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a very large number of components and materials come into this country from non-EU sources every day and fuel just-in-time systems alongside things from within the EU, proving that there is not a border issue about running just-in-time without being within the EU ring fence?

Dominic Raab: I understand the point my right hon. Friend makes. What we are trying to do, and what I think this model does achieve, is to make sure that any potential disruption to businesses through the supply chains is minimised as far as possible to the lowest degree. That is the aim, but I do understand the point he makes.

Owen Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Dominic Raab: I will make a little progress, but I promise the hon. Gentleman I will come back to him.
Alongside the close arrangements for goods, we will negotiate a wide-ranging but different approach on services, including the digital sector, one of the fastest growing sectors for the UK. That will protect businesses from unjustified barriers or discrimination. It will cover mutual recognition of professional qualifications and it will also preserve our regulatory freedom.
On financial services, we will seek a new partnership in that area, reflecting the mutual interests of the UK and the EU. This approach to services is based partly on the absence of any of the risks of border disruption that might affect trade and goods, coupled with the distinct advantage of regaining domestic regulatory control and the ability to forge new trade deals with fewer fetters so we are well placed to grasp the opportunities of the future.

Owen Smith: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. I hear what he says about the Government’s desire to retain as frictionless trade as possible, but does he share my concern that the chief executive of Airbus has said only today that he is so concerned about the prospect of friction that Airbus is having to stockpile components in this country lest the Government make a further mess of Brexit and we end up unable to have frictionless, just-in-time trade?

Dominic Raab: I think that, in the hon. Gentleman’s own elegant way, that was a backhanded welcome for these proposals to minimise any risks in that regard, and what we should now all do in all parts of this Chamber is not call for second referendums or returning to the customs union, but get behind the Government’s plan and show a united front so we get the very best deal for everyone in this country.

Owen Smith: Will you tell the former Foreign Secretary that?

Dominic Raab: I shall indeed, but I appreciate the support.
This is the ambitious and balanced approach reflected in the White Paper. As well as sensibly managing the risks of disruption to trade with our EU friends, it frees the UK to trade with greater vim and vigour with the rest of the world, and particularly to capture the growth markets and opportunities of the future. It will allow us to seize the opportunities for more liberal and energetic free trade arrangements with the export markets of the future from Mexico to Japan, which is important for creating the jobs of the future, and for cutting the costs of goods in this country to ease the cost of living for lower and middle-income families.
As we leave the EU, free movement will end. Our immigration policy will be set not in Brussels but by hon. Members elected by the people of this country in this House. We will design a new immigration system that works in the national interest: a system that enables us to control the numbers of people coming to live in this country and that places stronger security checks at the border. We will end free movement, but that does not mean pulling up a drawbridge or turning away the talent we need, and indeed want, for the UK to be an outward-looking nation attractive to investment and open to business.
In line with the arrangements we will negotiate with our close trading partners around the world, the White Paper makes it clear that we want to support businesses being able to transfer to their UK offices those from the EU with the bespoke expertise or experience required to deliver services here. We also want people to be able to travel without a visa between the UK and the EU for temporary business activity. We want families and youngsters to travel for holidays and tourism, and students to study at university across the continent. We can agree these common-sense reciprocal arrangements while regaining control of our immigration policy. That is the balanced approach that will best serve the UK.

Bob Neill: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. Will he bear it in mind that there must be linkage between the very welcome liberal approach to visa regimes that he mentions and, in relation to professional services, mutual recognition of qualifications so that lawyers and other professional advisers can operate on the current fly-in, fly-out policy that is critical to the City of London and other financial sectors?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes the right point, and he will see extensive text in the White Paper covering precisely that point.
Our vision for a security partnership covers those vital areas and interests that we share in common. Our proposals will maintain operational capabilities that are necessary to protect our citizens, and enable rapid and secure data exchange, practical cross-border operational co-operation, and continued participation in key agencies including Eurojust and Europol, which already have partnerships with many non-EU countries. We will also pursue arrangements for co-ordination in other areas where we have mutual interests: foreign policy, defence, development issues, joint capability development and wider co-operation.
On the return of democratic control over powers and authority to the UK, the White Paper proposals end the jurisdiction of the European Court in the UK. Laws will be decided by elected Members in this House, and UK courts will no longer refer cases to the Luxembourg Court. In a limited number of areas we will choose to adopt common rules to ensure the free flow of goods, but that body of law is relatively stable and where there are any changes Parliament—this House—must approve them. When the UK and the EU need a clear and consistent interpretation of such rules, as between the UK and the EU, we can choose to make a reference to Luxembourg Court for such an interpretation, but the UK will have to agree to that first, and reference for legal interpretation is very different from giving the European Court the authority to apply the law to the facts or to decide which party to any litigation is successful in its claims. When the UK Supreme Court is no longer subordinate to the European Court, it will finally do what it says on the tin.
This is a principled and practical approach. We have shown flexibility as we strive for a good deal for both the United Kingdom and the European Union and as we demonstrate our ambition for a close partnership through the White Paper.

Karin Smyth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I welcome him to his new position. He might be coming on to talk about Northern Ireland, but just in case he has no more to say than his brief comment, may I ask him a question? His predecessor admitted that he had not actually visited the border area, apart from on one brief occasion recently, for more than 20 years, since when, times have changed massively. Will the Secretary of State give an indication today of whether he has any more plans, besides his rather vague infrastructure promises, for dealing with the question of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland?

Dominic Raab: I understand precisely the hon. Lady’s concern. This is an important and sensitive issue, and I will be engaging on the EU track in relation to it. I will also, at the right time, make sure that I am properly versed and properly briefed on the matter, and indeed that I visit the border area to take a look for myself.
It is worth emphasising two key principles that we share with our EU friends. The first is that article 50 dictates that a withdrawal agreement must come alongside a framework for the future agreement. The second, flowing from that, is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Government respect and prize both those principles, and we will not sign away our negotiating leverage or spend taxpayers’ money in return for nothing. In December, we agreed that the financial settlement would sit alongside a framework for a deep and mutually beneficial future partnership. We agreed that we would meet our commitments as they fell due, with ever-declining payments over a finite period that will add up to a tiny fraction of what our net contribution would have been as a member. If either side should fail to meet their commitments under this overarching package—we certainly do not expect that to be the case—that would have consequences for the deal as a whole that we are striving to secure.

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment.  On Tuesday, I hosted an event here in Parliament where the BeLeave whistleblower, Shahmir Sanni, told us that every member of the Vote Leave campaign committee knew precisely about the £680,000 that was donated by Vote Leave to BeLeave. The Secretary of State was of course an active member of the campaign committee for Vote Leave, and presumably therefore knew about that £680,000 donation. Given the importance of his role now in the negotiations with Mr Barnier, will he take this opportunity to set out in precise detail what he knew about that donation to BeLeave? This could be an opportunity to enhance and reinforce his authority and credibility in the negotiations.

Dominic Raab: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s efforts to try to strengthen my leverage in the negotiations to get Brexit delivered, and I take him at his word. I had nothing to do with any of the financial arrangements; I was on the campaign board. Those details are subject to investigation by the appropriate authorities, and I would just gently say to him that trying in this rather backhanded way to undermine the credibility and the verdict of the British people will only rebound on him—

Stephen Kinnock: It is the verdict of the Electoral Commission.

Dominic Raab: But the verdict of the British people is the one that we in this House must give effect to.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dominic Raab: I will not give way.
Tomorrow I will be in Brussels to meet my counterpart, Michel Barnier, to discuss the details of the White Paper and to take stock of the negotiations. The UK will extend the arm of friendship in a spirit of optimism and goodwill, backed by an ambitious and innovative plan that respects the position, interests and concerns of the EU. I certainly hope that that ambition and goodwill will be reciprocated.

Hugo Swire: I also welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. When he meets Mr Barnier for the first time tomorrow, will he ask him, as evidence of that good will as the pace of the negotiations starts to increase, whether he will look again at the exclusion of Britain from some parts of the Galileo project and also address why the Department for International Development is being excluded from some projects that it co-funds with the EU?

Dominic Raab: I will certainly consider all those areas not only in detail, but in terms of the strategic overview and the state of play of the negotiations as a whole. As I said, I hope that the ambition and good will reflected in the White Paper will be reciprocated.
Equally, it is the duty of any responsible Government to prepare for every eventuality, including the unlikely scenario that we reach March 2019 without agreeing a deal. It is essential that plans are in place to mitigate risks and ensure stability whatever the outcome of the negotiations. The Government have been working on nearly 300 no deal plans for almost two years, and some of them are already in the public domain. Last month, we passed the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, which provides the legal basis for developing our own regulatory system in that vital area. We have also been taking other  practical action to ensure that the infrastructure is in place. For example, we have recruited 300 extra border staff, and a further drive to create another 1,000 was launched earlier this year.
Many of our no deal preparations have so far been developed internally and through targeted engagement with relevant parties. However, more of the preparations will now become public, and I can tell the House that the Government will release a series of technical notices over August and September to set out what UK businesses and citizens will need to do in the event of a no deal scenario, thereby making the public more aware of our preparations. That due diligence is designed to provide reassurance. In reality, such planning cannot properly be done without some public-facing engagement.

Thangam Debbonaire: I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on the right hon. Gentleman’s appointment. He mentioned advance preparations, but I find it incredibly curious that it took two years before we even started them. He says that no responsible Government would wait to make backstop arrangements, but what happened before the referendum? What has happened over the past two years? Why have we waited until there are just weeks to go before making backstop arrangements?

Dominic Raab: I listen carefully to the points that the hon. Lady and all hon. Members make, regardless of their views on Brexit, but I just said that the Government have been working on 300 no deal plans for almost two years. Planning has not just started. However, we are going to start increasing the pace of the preparations—

Wera Hobhouse: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Steven Baker: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Dominic Raab: May I make some progress? As a result of the further measures that we will be taking, more of the preparations will become public facing. It is important that we talk about that in order to reassure the public that it is the responsible thing to do.

Steven Baker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking up his new post. As he knows, I am well familiar with the work that has been done. He may have heard my question at PMQs earlier, but may I put to him what I put to the Prime Minister? When technical notices or any communications related to no deal are released, will he please ensure that they are shaped to ensure that they support the credibility and feasibility of our plans, not only to give comfort and reassurance to business, but to strengthen our negotiating position?

Dominic Raab: This is an opportune moment to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work in the Department, particularly on no deal planning. He makes an excellent point that will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue to step up our preparations.

Owen Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way before he moves on?

Dominic Raab: I will not. Other people want to speak and I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
We will strive in the spirit of optimism to strike the very best deal with our European friends but, whatever the outcome of our negotiations, we stand ready to make a success of Brexit.

Keir Starmer: She may have left the Chamber, but I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for her moving speech in support of her Access to Welfare (Terminal Illness Definition) Bill. I also listened to some of the debate on the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill, on which unity broke out—in fact, there was a celebration of unity. I am not sure we can maintain that unity in this debate, but we can remain civil in our disagreements. In order to do that, apart from one reference, I had best avoid mentioning the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).
The Prime Minister insists that her Brexit plan will deliver a “smooth and orderly” exit from the EU. Anyone looking in over these past few weeks will be bound to conclude that nothing could be further from the truth. The Chequers agreement took two years to reach and two days to unravel and, even in the past hour and a half, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has said that we should get behind it. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip called it the
“miserable permanent limbo of Chequers”
to great cheering from that part of the Chamber.
A White Paper that should have been published before article 50 was invoked arrived late for the statement last week and, after this week’s votes, lies in tatters. There have been daily resignations and knife-edge votes, and we see a Government clinging on literally vote by vote by using, as I understand from last night, threats of no-confidence votes and of a general election to achieve a result and, it seems, by breaking pairing arrangements with an MP on maternity leave. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said about that earlier, but I ask the Secretary of State to explain how the Tory party chairman, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), accidentally voted on two crucial votes and yet managed, presumably deliberately, to abstain on the others as agreed.
Now the Secretary of State is trying to sell a White Paper that he had not seen until last week and in which, in many respects, it is hard to believe he really believes. It is already dead in the water. That is before he has even had the chance to meet Michel Barnier.
Although some Brexiteers predicted that the negotiations with the EU would be the easiest in history—that was the Secretary of State for International Trade—and that new trade agreements would be signed by March 2019 with countries totalling 10 times the geographical size of the EU, which was the corker from the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, most of us recognised that, in honesty, the Brexit process would be very complicated and very difficult. I have always accepted that negotiating Brexit would be a challenge for any Government.
What we have seen in the past few weeks is not just a weak Government struggling with the inevitable complexities of Brexit; this is simply the latest battle of a political party at war with itself. A war once contained in the Conservative party now threatens to engulf the country. For 30 years or more the Conservative party has been engaged in a civil war over Europe, and the national interest has been the collateral.
The European question has brought down the Conservative party’s last three Prime Ministers, and it could well bring down this one. Margaret Thatcher was completely at odds with her Cabinet on the exchange rate mechanism, and it eventually led to her downfall. John Major grappled with his Maastricht rebels, and we know how he referred to them. Indeed, that accidental recording of John Major’s comments has resonance today:
“The real problem is one of a tiny majority…a party that is still harking back to a golden age that never was, and is now invented.”
Then we had David Cameron, the man who told his party to stop “banging on about Europe” before calling a referendum, losing it and then riding off into the sunset.
While the Tory party fights with itself over Europe, as we have seen in the past couple of days, inequality continues to grow, the housing crisis spirals out of control, our NHS and public services groan under the cuts to their budgets, and any principle to guide our foreign policy has fallen by the wayside.

Nicholas Boles: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I will in just a moment.
Frankly, most people are sick and tired of this Tory war. Whether they voted to leave or remain, most people look on aghast at the mess the Government are making of Brexit; we have all had those comments made to us in the past few days.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will give way in a moment. People are aghast at the threat that that approach poses to jobs, the economy, peace in Northern Ireland and our place in the world. So I have a simple message to the Prime Minister and to the Government: this has got to stop. The Tory party has no right to risk the wellbeing of our country in this way or to plunge our politics, our Parliament and the wider country into the kind of chaos we have seen in recent weeks.

Simon Hoare: I am listening with great attention to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. I take the point that we are talking about the future of our nation. Is it not time, therefore, to build on this issue, as this House sculpts how this country looks as and when we leave the EU, and time for us to pull together, at the pragmatic centre ground of this House, to shape and sculpt the sort of Brexit that we want to see—one that works for our country and our economy, both now and in the future? We should not play party politics, but instead work together with common sense and pragmatism.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention. Anybody who has looked in on the past two days and seen the infighting on the Conservative Benches would  question whether that process cannot start with the Tory party. I have laid out the history because this is a deep divide, which has been at the heart of the Conservative party for decades. It has been waiting to break out since the referendum result. It has been contained time and again, but now it has broken out. Now it more than risks the Conservative party; it risks the future of our country, and that is why it has got to stop.

Nicholas Boles: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, so he would never say anything without appropriate evidence. He should therefore withdraw his comment that inequality is rising, because he will know as well as everyone else that the Office for National Statistics and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have confirmed that inequality has not risen at any point in the past 10 years.

Keir Starmer: I simply disagree, on so many fronts, but that is a whole discussion in its own right. I invite the hon. Gentleman to walk around my constituency on any day of his choosing to see the obvious inequality there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will make some progress and then I will give way again.
The flaws in this White Paper and the mess the Government find themselves in do not just stem from the history of Conservative party splits over Europe—there are mistakes of this Government, too. After the referendum, we needed decisive leadership to bring a divided country together—to honour the result, but also to speak for those who voted remain. We needed a vision where everybody could see their future, and we needed to ensure that the social and economic causes of the referendum were addressed. Instead the Prime Minister set out, in October 2016, impossible and extreme red lines: no customs union; no single market; having nothing to do with a European Court; having no common EU agencies. She also had no plan to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. In addition, she pushed away Parliament. There was a moment when she could have sought its backing, but she pushed it away and avoided scrutiny. None of the speeches she has ever made on Brexit—the “House speeches”—have been put to a vote in this Parliament to see whether they would be approved. She has rejected sensible amendments and proposals from across the House to make Brexit work. What is the result? It has taken two years to produce this White Paper and it has lasted less than a week.

Mark Pritchard: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fair-minded individual and he is doing a great job of bringing the Government to account over the Chequers plan, but of course he and his party agree with parts of that plan. Would he like to say what parts he agrees with, rather than just those he disagrees with?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention. I will come to that, because I am coming to the detail now and I will go through it.
I turn to the facilitated customs union arrangement, because it demonstrates how unworkable the White Paper is. It is based on the idea that traders can reliably   distinguish at the border between goods intended for the UK and goods intended for the EU. Paragraph 16a of the White Paper says that
“where a good reaches the UK border, and the destination can be robustly demonstrated by a trusted trader, it will pay the UK tariff if it is destined for the UK and the EU tariff if it is destined for the EU.”
The idea is that, at the border, someone can safely distinguish between goods that are going on to the EU and those that are not and then apply different tariffs and different regimes to them. Whatever “robustly demonstrated” means is not set out, but it is a complicated two-tier system, which is why business has been so concerned about it. It involves the idea that we will account to the EU for the tariffs that are collected. If the destination of goods is not known, the higher tariff is paid at the border and recouped at some later stage. That is a hugely complicated two-tier system, with a third system overlaid for goods the destiny of which is not known.
I have heard it said that, happily, for 96% of goods, the destiny will be known on the border. The reference for that is footnote 6 on page 17 of the White Paper. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has chased that footnote, but I have. I challenge him to explain on some occasion—now, if he can—how that 96% figure is arrived at, because it is not at all clear from that footnote. However, the important point is this: whether it is 96%, or some lesser percentage, there will need to be checks to ensure the integrity of the system and to avoid abuse.
The solution that the Government have put forward is the tracking mechanism that was floated last summer. It is an interesting idea; it is a shame that it does not yet exist. It is no good Ministers on the Front Bench shaking their head. If the position is that there will be no checking at all after the event to see whether the right tariff was indeed paid, to avoid abuse or to protect the integrity of the scheme, I will let the Secretary of State intervene on me to say that the proposal is that, as goods pass the border, that is it—no check. If that is not the case, he must accept that, as with any system, whatever the percentage, rightly designated or not at the border, there will have to be tracking systems to check that the correct tariff was paid; otherwise, it is very obviously open to gross abuse.

Vicky Ford: This time last week I met Members of the European Parliament, including one from the Socialist group who explained to me that a senior member of the Labour party had addressed their group and, in the words of that parliamentarian, effectively they had been discouraged from giving the UK too good a deal because it would encourage other countries to Brexit themselves. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm whether he or any other Members of the Opposition Front Bench have indeed addressed the Socialist parliamentary group of the European Parliament, and can he confirm that if and when negotiations are concluded along the lines of the White Paper, he will encourage people to vote for it in the best interests of our country?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention. I have made many, many trips to Brussels. I have had many discussions with political parties across all of the EU27 countries, and I have never, on any occasion,  sought to undermine the Government in any of those discussions. I made that commitment to the former Secretary of State when he started his role and when I started my role. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing in what the hon. Lady has said.

Alex Chalk: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving, as one would expect, a forensic and detailed scrutiny of these proposals, but the end point of his argument must be that there should be a customs union. I understand the point, but has he made any assessment of the extent to which, in the country, there would be a sense of betrayal, which would place the disquiet that has taken place in this House into a cocked hat? Does he have any assessment of that?

Keir Starmer: The referendum answered the question, “Do you want to stay in or leave the EU?” We are now grappling with the question of what the future arrangements should be. We have to safeguard the manufacturing sector and we have to keep to the solemn commitment that there will be no hard border in Northern Ireland. Anybody who has looked at the issue has accepted that the only way to keep to that solemn commitment on Northern Ireland is to have a customs union with the EU.

Marcus Fysh: rose—

Keir Starmer: Let me complete my point.
The second half of the intervention by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) implied that anybody who voted leave would not countenance a common rulebook on goods; well, that is in the White Paper, because we have all had to work through the practical consequences of the referendum. It is no good to take such an extreme interpretation of Brexit that we wreck the manufacturing sector, abandon the service sector and abandon the solemn commitment to Northern Ireland. We have all been grappling with those issues for two years and we have to stop this suggestion that to put forward any practical arrangement for moving forward and safeguarding our country is somehow to frustrate or betray the referendum.
I see that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), has walked in. Earlier, there was a suggestion that in my discussions in Brussels or elsewhere in the European Union I had somehow been trying to undermine what he has done. He and I know that that has never been the case, so I invite him to intervene, if he would.

David Davis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had many discussions with me, on Privy Council terms, over the past two years, and I have to say to the House that he has always been supportive of the country’s interests in those discussions and, indeed—at least in my understanding —in his conversations in the European Union.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention; I hope it deals with the suggestion made earlier.
Let me go back to the facilitated customs arrangement. It is a complicated, two-tier arrangement that involves different tariffs being charged at the border and, if it is not known what tariff should be taken, it involves the tariff being reimbursed later if it was wrong.

Dominic Raab: indicated dissent.

Keir Starmer: It is no good the Secretary of State shaking his head, because that is what it says in paragraph 16 of the White Paper. It is complicated. It is no wonder that businesses have said that they are sceptical about it and it is no wonder that the EU has said that it does not think it can operate such a system. It is no doubt for that reason that paragraph 17(a) says, after a description of the arrangement:
“However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.”
There is no reading of that other than, “This is so complicated and bureaucratic that we know the EU will not be prepared to do it and we are not going to ask it to.” There is no other reading of that sentence.
Enter Monday’s European Research Group new clause 36, which says:
“Subject to subsection (2), it shall be unlawful for HMRC to account for any duty of customs or VAT or excise duty collected by HMRC to the Government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”,
unless
“arrangements have been entered into by Her Majesty’s Government and that government under which that government will account to HMRC for those duties and taxes collected in that country on a reciprocal basis.”
In other words, it will be unlawful for us to collect and account for taxes at our borders unless other countries and territories—the EU27—collect tariffs and account for them for us. It will be unlawful. The White Paper says that we are not going to ask the EU to do it, but new clause 36 says it will be unlawful if the EU does not.

Dominic Raab: indicated dissent.

Keir Starmer: I invite the Secretary of State to intervene if he wants to quibble with that analysis. By that amendment, the Government have cut across their White Paper and inevitably made it more difficult for the Secretary of State to negotiate with the EU when he goes there tomorrow, because the EU has said, “This is not attractive to us and we don’t want to do this.” The White Paper says that we will not ask the EU to— presumably, as part of that discussion, that makes sense as the logical next move—but Monday’s new clause, which was a wrecking amendment, has now made it unlawful for a sensible way to be found through.

Marcus Fysh: rose—

Keir Starmer: I shall make further progress, then give way.
This is not just a forensic challenge to the White Paper; it is fundamental. Absent a workable customs arrangement, the Government have no answer to the question of how they would protect the manufacturing sector. Absent a workable customs arrangement—

Dominic Raab: The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s analysis is not that forensic, because—inadvertently rather than deliberately, I suspect—he omits the key words from the White Paper:
“The UK and the EU should agree a mechanism for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue. On the basis that this is likely to be the most robust approach, the UK proposes a tariff revenue formula”.
That, of course, will be agreed as well; that is what the negotiations are for. It is set out plainly and squarely in the White Paper, and I think he knows that.

Keir Starmer: I anticipated that challenge, and I anticipated that sentence. Let us read the sentence:
“The UK and the EU should agree a mechanism for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue.”
Will it be reciprocal, or not? If it is not reciprocal, it will be unlawful; that is the difficulty. If it is intended to be reciprocal, what is the point of the sentence reassuring the EU that
“the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK”?
Whatever the arrangement is, we know one thing about it: it will not involve the EU applying UK tariffs and trade policy at its border. Otherwise, what is the point of that qualification?

Dominic Raab: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a false distinction. The key line in the paragraph is that
“the UK proposes a tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and goods destined for the EU entering via the UK.”
That is the most explicit statement of reciprocity. What more could he expect?

Keir Starmer: I invite the Secretary of State to intervene just one more time. What is the point of the sentence that follows the one that he has just read out?

Dominic Raab: It is the exception to those arrangements, which is that we are not requiring the EU to levy the tariffs.

Keir Starmer: This must be my failure to comprehend. There is an arrangement whereby tariffs are applied at the border and accounted for. The UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK, so how is it going to account for them?

Wera Hobhouse: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share my suspicion that the proposals are designed to be so complicated and difficult that the EU will find it very hard to engage with them, so that time will go by and we will end up crashing out without a deal, as has always been the Government’s intention?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention, because it demonstrates why this is so important. Unless there is a customs arrangement that works for manufacturing, there is not an arrangement that works for manufacturing. The Government last night voted down an amendment to say, “If we cannot make something else work, we will have a customs union.” So if this does not work, there is nothing for manufacturing. Equally, if this does not work, there is nothing for Northern Ireland.

Dominic Raab: indicated dissent.

Keir Starmer: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but if this does not work, what is the plan? If he wants to intervene, that is fine. If this plan does not work—if this facilitated customs arrangement is not acceptable—the default, according to the Government, is not a customs union. What is the plan?

Dominic Raab: This model will work. I gently say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: if he cared about it that much, why did the Labour party go into the last election committed to having an independent trade policy, which can only mean leaving the customs union?

Keir Starmer: I really do not like the Secretary of State saying, “if he cared about it that much”. The suggestion that we are not both engaging in a difficult analysis of the White Paper with the interests of our country at heart is not fair. I care about this greatly, because without the right arrangement, I genuinely believe that manufacturing in this country will be at risk. Having worked in Northern Ireland for five years, I genuinely believe that, without a working arrangement, the solemn commitment to no hard border in Northern Ireland may not be kept. It is really serious, and point scoring about whether one is serious about it or not does not help; doing so demeans the Secretary of State in his role. It is not the way to conduct such debates.
It is not just the manufacturing sector; the White Paper’s proposals on services reveal a huge black hole. Likewise, the proposals on rights and protections are simply inadequate. On social rights, employment rights and environmental rights, there is a non-regression approach: we will not necessarily keep up and we will not necessarily improve, but things will not necessarily get worse.
There is no clarity on the role of the European Court of Justice. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, “It ends”, but it clearly does not end. The European Court has two different primary jurisdictions: first, dispute settlement; and secondly, reference. That is the jurisdiction that it has had, as he very well knows, with his experience. The second of those is being preserved for everything in the common rulebook. That is why it has caused such difficulty within his own party. The jurisdiction of the Court would exist on reference procedure for that wide range of issues, and he well knows it. It will operate, I should imagine, in precisely the same way that it operates now. That is, there will be a reference to the Court, the Court will decide the question before it, it will give a ruling and an interpretation, and that interpretation will be binding, because if it is not, there is no point in that reference procedure, as he knows.

Dominic Raab: indicated dissent.

Keir Starmer: Well, if the Secretary of State is going to suggest that the reference to the Court is for a ruling that is not binding, I will be very interested to hear about it, because there is not much point in referring something to a court for a ruling and then saying, “Well, it’s very nice but we’re not going to apply it.” The whole thing only works if the ruling of the European Court can be binding.
The proposal for the labour mobility framework says things about business trips and tourism, but is completely silent on the terms under which EU citizens will be able to live and work in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.
The grim reality is this: it has taken two years to get to this point, yet, on analysis, there is nothing there—or, more accurately, there is nothing that the warring Conservative party can agree on. The Prime Minister’s plan is exposed as unworkable and unacceptable to her own party, but she cannot move forward, as Monday night showed, and she cannot move backwards, as last  night showed. That is not taking back control; it is no control—stalemate. But the country cannot keep paying the price for these divisions in the Conservative party. We need a Brexit plan that can unite the country and protect jobs and the economy, and I am sorry to say that this White Paper is not it.

Steven Baker: A little over a week ago, I appeared on TV and invited colleagues to take stock, so I hope that in this speech I will make some attempt to do that.
The first thing I should like to say is that I believe we should develop
“a special relationship with”
the European Union,
“aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values”
which we share
“and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.”
Informed Members of the House will have spotted that in saying that I have transposed article 8 of the Treaty on European Union. That should be our common goal.
What kind of character should this co-operation have? I do not want us to build a wall; I want us to remain the closest of friends and partners. In that spirit, I propose, first, that
“as we are confronted with similar security threats…the EU and the UK continue our common fight against terrorism and international crime.”
Secondly, I propose that the UK should
“participate in EU programmes in the fields of research and innovation, as well as in education and culture. This is key to maintain mutually beneficial and enriching personal networks in these…areas, and for our shared common community of values to prosper…in future.”
Thirdly, I would like to
“avoid that particularly absurd consequence of Brexit that is the disruption of flights between the UK and the EU.”
I would also like to make sure that there is no disruption on data, the channel tunnel or roll-on/roll-off ferries. Finally, I
“propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other free trade agreements, it should address services. And in fisheries, reciprocal access to fishing waters and resources should be maintained.”
In saying that, I have just stuck very closely, with some variations, to quoting President Donald Tusk’s statement on the draft guidelines on the framework for the future relationship with the UK, issued on 7 March 2018.
I have been astonished recently to learn just how many colleagues had not noticed that offer which was placed before us—a wide-ranging offer including free trade and no tariffs in all sectors, including services. We have to ask why we have not taken this path. I have concluded from my experience that it is first and foremost because the establishment, the governing class of this country, does not believe in Brexit. The governing class believes in EU membership and is trying to deliver something as close as possible to the EU—not the EEA and the customs union because it is known that such an arrangement would not be accepted as leaving, but something like the customs union and EEA-lite, if I might call it that. That is what is before us in the Chequers White Paper.

Peter Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman explain who and what is the governing class? If it is not the former Foreign Secretary, what on earth is it?

Steven Baker: As you know, Mr Speaker, I have been asked to keep to a time, and that term is sufficiently familiar to people in this House and across the country so I will not spend minutes defining it. It is the great class of people who govern our country, whether in politics, the civil service or the media, and those who govern our large companies.

Owen Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steven Baker: No. I am making my points gently and trying to do so in a spirit of co-operation. I heard the hon. Gentleman accuse me from a sedentary position of Trumpism, and I am not willing to go down that path with him.

Stephen Gethins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me?

Steven Baker: I will not; I will go on.
I will say this, because it is important that it is said—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is a rather discordant atmosphere in the House. This is a matter upon which there are passionately held and differing points of view, but Members are entitled to be heard with courtesy. I simply reference the fact that the hon. Gentleman is an immediate-past Minister and he must be heard, and heard with courtesy.

Steven Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try most sincerely not to be too indiscreet, but before Christmas—I believe it was September or October but my detailed, copious notes are at home and so not available to me—I was asked by a very senior person what the political consequences would be of choosing an EEA-lite deal. I explained that it would be a political cataclysm for the Conservative party and there would be a great political explosion if such a thing were chosen. We discussed it at some length.
Shortly after Christmas, after the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), joined the Department, I will reveal that we had a ministerial meeting at which all the Ministers looked at the proposals in advice, and we all agreed we should build from a free trade agreement Canada-style rather than take an EEA-lite deal. Yet, despite proceeding on that collective basis in our Department, here we are with a proposal before the House that requires a mandatory degree of high alignment to EU rules. It is an EEA-lite proposal, not a Canada-plus proposal, if I may put it in those terms, despite a long history of Ministers rejecting that.
I have to conclude that it has long been the intention of those providing advice that we should arrive at such a relationship. Those proposing this category of close relationship, with the up-front choice of mandatory alignment, have two profound problems. First, the project of the European Union is in real difficulty. I take no pleasure in that, and no one need take my word for it—Jean-Claude Juncker said on 14 September 2016:
“Our European Union is, at least in part, in an existential crisis.”
Monsieur Macron said in Strasbourg on 17 April this year:
“There is a fascination with the illiberal, and that is growing all the time…Month after month we are seeing views and sensibilities emerge which call into question certain fundamentals. There seems to be a sort of European civil war.”
That is the most of extraordinary thing to have been said, yet it was said by a man who supports the European project. George Soros, who famously supports the project, has said:
“The European Union is mired in an existential crisis. For the past decade, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong.”

Andrew Lewer: I thank my hon. Friend not only for his words today but for the hard work he put into trying to get us to the right place. Does he recall that it was my view as an MEP at the time, and that of the British people, that the EU’s very direction of travel and the concept of it not as a static, safe, solid entity with which we are entering some sort of new relationship but an organisation moving in a particular, disturbing direction that led the British public to make the decision they did, and it is our responsibility to fulfil that?

Steven Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would extend his remarks by saying that it is clear, across the European Union, that the project is running into the problem, as its proponents have said, that it lacks democratic consent for what is being done. This is a profound problem that should alarm all of us.
If we look at Hungary, we see that almost 70% of the vote share is for parties that could be considered populist. In Germany, Alternative für Deutschland has risen from obscurity to be the third largest party, forcing Frau Merkel into a coalition—an unwanted coalition—to keep it out. In the Netherlands, the major parties have announced that they would do everything they could to keep the so-called Freedom party out of power, refusing to form coalitions with it despite the Freedom party getting the second largest share of the vote. I am very grateful to those in the Italian Parliament for passing a helpful motion, but I hope they will not be offended if I say that their parties are not necessarily considered mainstream. The rejection of the status quo in Italy is indicative of a trend right across Europe where, politically, the project is being rejected.
On the economy, I would just say that, according to the House of Commons Library, the European Central Bank has, in total to date, purchased €2.5 trillion of assets, which includes €2 trillion of Government debt. By the end of 2018, the figure is scheduled to be €2.6 trillion. That is equivalent to about 23% of annual eurozone GDP. This is the most extraordinary economic and monetary period in history. I personally believe that the distortions sown by quantitative easing on such a scale will unwind, and will do so in a very harmful way. That is the first problem faced by those who propose a high-alignment scenario such as this one. It seeks to cling on to institutions and a kind of political economy that are running out of public consent and have economic difficulties.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is delivering. I am glad that he is using statistics from the House of Commons Library that he   clearly believes. As a former Minister, will he reflect on the statistics that the UK Government put together showing just how disastrous every form of Brexit would be?

Steven Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I will just refer him to the answer to the relevant urgent question, which I will stand by for a very long time.
The second point—I have received some private communications reinforcing my view—is that, unfortunately, the establishment believes that any deal will be voted through by this House and is working on that basis. I have to say it is with some horror that I face the possibility that that consideration is being borne in mind by negotiators, because I do not believe for a moment that it is true. I believe that Scottish National party Members will always vote in a way that reinforces their hopes of secession from the UK, which is bound to mean voting against any agreement. I believe that the Labour party, for all the good faith of the shadow Secretary of State, will in the end vote against any agreement—any agreement. That therefore means that people—whether or not they like it, and however impartial they may be—must bring forward a deal that can be voted through by the Conservative party.
The number 40 has been bandied around in this House in the past few days. I am sorry to say it—it gives me no pleasure to say it, but I must do so—“and the rest”. People who have said 40 are not out by a fraction: when they come to consider the number of Members on the Conservative Benches who do not like this deal and are willing to vote in line with that dislike, they are out by a factor, not by a fraction. That means people must face up to the difficult truth that a high alignment—a Brexit that requires a high degree of permanent alignment to the European Union—will not go through this House of Commons; it will fail. Those are the two difficulties that officials—officials—must face up to.

Stephen Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steven Baker: I will give way briefly, and I then want to try to move to a conclusion.

Stephen Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm that he is in effect saying that Chequers is absolutely dead in the water? The implications of that are enormous for the Secretary of State, who is about to go to Brussels to meet Monsieur Barnier. How is he supposed to do that, and on what basis is he conducting those negotiations? If the hon. Gentleman could also say what his alternative plan is, that would be very useful for the House.

Steven Baker: I am about to come on to my alternative, but I will not have words put in my mouth. I said when I appeared on the television last Monday that this was a time for reflection and taking stock, because the choices before this country are grave. Every Member of this House, on whichever Bench they sit, needs to think extremely carefully about how we go forward. I will not have words put in my mouth. What I have said, I have said from my knowledge and I believe it. No one should plan on a high-alignment deal—an EEA-lite style deal—going through this House.
Three key steps should be taken as we go forward. The first is that those in the UK who I would call the establishment, the governing class—those who create the climate of opinion—must accept the referendum result and its consequences. I encourage them to look at President Tusk’s March statement on the guidelines. The red lines that the British public expect us to fulfil imply that the common landing ground of our relationship with the EU, which I spelled out, taking words from his statement, is partnership on security, some participation in research, innovation, culture and education, dealing with the absurd consequences that would otherwise arise, and having a free trade agreement in the style of a normal FTA, not EEA-lite. That must be embraced.
Secondly, I refer the House to the question asked of the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) today. The Government should table a legal text that should include a solution for the border in Ireland. We should stand ready, open, to negotiate this common ground set out in March.

Edward Leigh: The Prime Minister appears to be saying that President Tusk’s suggestion of a Canada deal is not acceptable because it would result in some kind of hard border. That is not something I accept, but perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on it. If we have the facilitated customs arrangement, will we not need some tracking device and, if we have a tracking device, could that not be used to alleviate any hard border in Northern Ireland?

Steven Baker: Mr Speaker, I am conscious that I am going beyond the guidance that you gave us, and I am very grateful to you for allowing that.
What I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is that I believe that the problems of the Irish border are first and foremost to do with political and administrative will. A great deal has been said about technology, which is in fact a distraction from the reality that there is already a border, particularly in relation to excise. It is necessary to have an element of political and administrative fudge on the border, if I may say so, but to do it in a way that works for both sides. I believe that it really is political and administrative will that stands in the way, and that there are no insurmountable problems on the border. I also believe that there are no insurmountable problems with customs declarations or rules of origin. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) might touch on that, as I know that he is an expert on the subject.
The second point is to table legal text to stand ready in good faith to negotiate the landing zone set out by the President and Council and to be ready to deliver in the spirit of article 8.
The third thing we must do is that thing which the Cabinet resolved collectively at Chequers. We must accelerate the delivery of our plans to leave the European Union in the unwanted eventuality that nothing can be agreed. We must be ready. We cannot allow ourselves to be in a position where complacency means that the Government machine goes forward thinking that any deal will go through Parliament, when I feel confident that deals that are for want of a better term too soft will be rejected by this House. We cannot allow ourselves to  be put in a position in which we are perhaps not as ready as we should be and a deal is unexpectedly voted down.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steven Baker: I want to wrap up. The right hon. Gentleman intervened on me so many times when I was in another role that I hope that he will forgive me for not giving way now.
I am sure that our country is on the cusp of delivering a catalysing transformation both of global free trade and corresponding political institutions in delivering democratic self-government that can deliver on the aspirations of the British people. There is a greater future ahead for the UK, Europe and the world if we do it, but if those who set the climate of opinion and decide what we shall do persist in turning their face against accepting the democratic decision and the red lines that people expect us to fulfil, and thus rejecting President Tusk’s vision of where we should land together, it will be their fault if we end up exiting this European Union with nothing agreed.

Peter Grant: Follow that! I gently say to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that he might not be able to explain briefly who and what the governing class is, but I can, because I am looking at them right now. For him to suggest that if Brexit all goes wrong, it is somebody else’s fault is typical of the approach that we have seen from his colleagues from day one. There was a mass evacuation, when Farage and Co. left, or prepared to leave, the country as soon as the dirty deed had been done. We had the former Foreign Secretary bailing out, trying to avoid becoming a Minister. We saw it again last week when Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries could not get off the sinking ship quick enough, so we will not have anybody, either now or in future, trying to point over to the Opposition Benches and say that it was our fault that their ridiculous, reckless escapade all went horribly wrong.
While we are talking about the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, this debate and the last few days have shown that there is a massive problem with the United Kingdom’s relationship with itself. The hon. Gentleman referred to the right problem, but in completely the wrong way. We have been lectured to since June 2016 that we must respect the will of the people. These are the people that the leave campaign lied to, cheated and campaigned on illegally, with dodgy money from who knows where. People were conned into a vote. They were deliberately targeted. The strategy was to identify people who were susceptible to racist propaganda and to bombard them with it until they voted leave. Now we are being told that we are supposed to respect these people, who were treated as mindless, meaningless lobby fodder by the leave campaign for so long, so I will have no lectures in respecting the people from anyone who has been in any way associated with what has to have been the dirtiest and most unprincipled, dishonest, unlawful campaign in recent history—and possibly the worst ever.
I saw a Minister trying to defend that yesterday by basically saying, “Yeah, but everybody knows that folk break the rules in elections.” What is that, coming from  a Minister in the Government of what is supposed to be mother democracy to all others? “Yeah, we know that people cheat, lie and break the rules during elections, but just let them get on with it. As long as we get a result, it doesn’t matter if the result has been achieved by fraud. As long as we get a result, things can carry on regardless.” No, things can no longer be allowed to carry on regardless, if it means that elections and referendums in these islands can be bought and sold by dodgy money from who knows what unspeakable sources.

Stephen Gethins: Like me, does my hon. Friend find it absolutely astonishing that those who have had a political lifetime to prepare for Brexit—two years in the most senior positions in Government—are trying to blame everybody else but themselves as the wheels come off the Brexit bus?

Peter Grant: I would find that astonishing, but I am sorry to say that I am getting used to it, because that is exactly what the hard Brexit campaign have been doing since the referendum was run. In fact, we have still not had a proper debate in this place about what exactly was the reason for Nigel Farage, even before the result was declared, conceding defeat and then changing his mind when the result was announced. It is possibly the only time in history that he has deliberately talked down his own chances of success. I wonder what that could have been about. We are not allowed to discuss that yet, but I sincerely hope that one day, we will be allowed to.
Let us get back to the question in hand: the relationship that the United Kingdom will have with the European Union. I say first that I want us to have a relationship, because after listening to the attitude expressed by many who have spoken from the Tory Benches over the last weeks and months, I wonder whether some of them want to have any kind of relationship at all. I wonder whether some of them still think that the relationship is the one that applied between the United Kingdom and some parts of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, and whether some of them think that somehow Europe is a colony of the United Kingdom, just waiting to be brought back into the mother-fold. I do not want any part of that kind of relationship with Europe or anywhere else. I want to be part of a nation that regards all other nations on Earth as equally respected partners, that will stand up for its own rights alongside all of them, and that respects the rights of nations throughout the world to govern themselves.

Luke Graham: The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about respecting other nations, but does he not find it slightly ironic that someone from a party that is based on dividing itself from the country that it currently exists in is then talking about respect for other nations?

Peter Grant: The House agreed unanimously two weeks ago that the people of Scotland were sovereign. It has unanimously and irrevocably abandoned any claim it ever had to the right to usurp the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. It would be bad enough hearing that kind of nonsense from a Member of Parliament with no understanding of Scotland, but to hear it from somebody who claims to represent part of Scotland is utterly ridiculous.
I will explain once again. I cannot do it in words of one syllable, though, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman might need somebody to explain it to him. I respect the results of the referendum in all four nations of these islands. I respect the result of the referendum in England and Wales, but that respect is conditional on it being established that the result was not rigged. I respect the decision of the people of Scotland and demand that each and every MP in this Chamber respect it likewise. I also respect the decision of the people of Northern Ireland—they get left out of this far too often. Their decision was not for a soft border to be introduced, or for the border to be magically moved a few miles inland to avoid any infrastructure at the border. The people of Northern Ireland have voted overwhelmingly on two occasions now for no border controls or infrastructure between them and their southern neighbours, and no solution that the Government put forward that breaks that decision of the people of Northern Ireland can be tolerated or should ever even be contemplated.
In respecting the results of the referendum in our four nations, I want to see the Government put forward proposals that recognise that the biggest partner in this Union voted to leave but that two of the four equal partners voted to remain. Scotland voted to remain by a majority of 24 percentage points. That was the size of the gap. It was not a close-run thing; it was overwhelming. There was a remain majority in every count declaration area in the country.
None the less, we are told that the way in which we are to be dragged out of the EU will be dictated not by proper discussions, on equal terms, between Scotland’s Government and the UK Government and will be determined not by listening to the views of the MPs and MSPs elected to represent Scotland but by a minority of Members of a minority governing party who think that because they can shout the loudest they have the right to tell the Prime Minister what to do. I was disappointed that she caved in to the minority, instead of seeking to find consensus across Parliament.

Luke Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Grant: I will try once again, but I have my doubts.

Luke Graham: The hon. Gentleman is talking about minorities. The SNP is in a minority Administration in Edinburgh. It does not own Scotland and it cannot speak for all of Scotland. We are here—Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative MPs—speaking for our constituencies in Scotland. We want to remain part of the United Kingdom and my constituents will respect the votes of the United Kingdom.

Peter Grant: I would expect everyone in Scotland to respect the result of the Scottish general election in 2016, which returned a majority of MSPs who supported independence and a Government with a mandate that said that if Westminster did to Scotland exactly as it is doing now, it would be grounds to give the people of Scotland a chance to control their own fate.

Hugo Swire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have very little time for this important debate, and I suspect that at any stage you might limit   our speeches, yet the debate seems to be turning into an internal, navel-gazing exercise by the SNP about what it has and has not achieved at Holyrood. Can we get back to the subject of the debate, which is the future relationship between the UK and the EU?

Eleanor Laing: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is setting out the context of his remarks. What he says is, of course, not a matter for me, but if he exceeds the parameters of the debate, I will stop him and insist that he stay within them. At the moment, I think that he is erring a little but will soon come back to the main purpose of the debate. I am also certain that he, appreciating that a lot of people wish to speak and that his speech is not time limited, will not take an awful lot longer.

Peter Grant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It goes without saying that I will at all times respect any judgments made by you and by any other occupant of the Chair.
I have said all along that I think that the people of England have made a catastrophic mistake, but sometimes democracy means that people must be allowed to make mistakes and then to sort them out. I rather think that the Government could have made a better fist of sorting out the mistake than they have over the last two years, but we shall see how that pans out.

Simon Hoare: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Grant: No, I really cannot, given that one of the hon. Gentleman’s own colleagues has complained that I am going on for too long. I am sorry, but other Members want to speak.
In return for that, it is not at all unreasonable to ask that the Government who lead the negotiations should have proper regard to the fact that two of the four nations in this partnership of equals voted for a different result. Clearly we cannot have an arrangement whereby some parts of the United Kingdom are in the EU and some parts are not, but—with political will, with a willingness to be flexible, with a willingness to do the unprecedented because these are unprecedented times—there are ways in which the Government could present proposals to the EU that would come much closer to respecting the will of the people of Scotland and the will of the people of Northern Ireland than anything that they have been prepared to put forward in the past.
I do not accept the analysis of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who is trying to tell us that there is a huge and building majority for a hard Brexit, or a Brexit that respects the European Research Group’s eight red lines. These are the people who do not want us to tie the Prime Minister’s hands. They have put down eight red lines, and if she violates any one of them, she would face of vote of no confidence.

Steven Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Peter Grant: No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for long enough.

Steven Baker: Will he give way?

Peter Grant: No.
I accept that there are Members here who have a great love for their country, however they describe it, and who want their country to go in a different direction from the direction in which I want my country to go. However, I remind Members once again that this House no longer claims the right to dictate to the people of Scotland the direction in which our country will be taken. This House unanimously accepted a proposal. The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke in favour of it. No one spoke against it. The United Kingdom Parliament has never had the constitutional right to rule over the will and against the consent of the people of Scotland. What has changed in the last few weeks is that the United Kingdom Parliament has finally recognised that. What I am asking the Secretary of State to do, what I am asking the Minister to do, what I am asking the Government to do—

Luke Graham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the British constitution. There are Scottish Members of Parliament here, representing our constituencies and representing Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is no sovereignty of this place over Scotland. While we still have MPs in this place, this place is sovereign. The hon. Gentleman is out of order, and he is not telling the truth to all the people who are in the Public Gallery today.

Eleanor Laing: Order.

Luke Graham: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the constitution in his oration.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting his language. “Misinterpretation” I can allow. Of course, the matter of sovereignty is subject to many interpretations—indeed, volumes have been written about it—and it is not for me to judge whose interpretation of the meaning of sovereignty is correct, but the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is not out of order in what he is saying.

Peter Grant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy to refer the hon. Gentleman to the good reporters of Hansard, who, as we know, never make any mistakes when they record the decisions of this Parliament.
It was disappointing that the exchanges between the two main Front Benches tended to go into the nitty-gritty of customs and trade. It may be understandable, because that is where the battle lines have been drawn recently, but our relationship with the European Union is fundamentally about people.
Once again, the Front Benchers have not spoken enough about the millions of people who are currently living in one another’s countries as a matter of right, and who are seriously concerned about what their future will be. They have not yet spoken about the fact that in a few weeks, many of our great universities will welcome further waves of ambitious, talented young people from Europe and from other parts of the world who will feel that they are coming to a place that is less welcoming than it was a few years ago. The Government can deny it, and the Minister can shake his head, but people from other European countries who live here believe that  they are less welcome now than they were before. Racism has been emboldened since the referendum in a way that it was not before.
I accept—I have accepted it for a while—that there is very little that is likely to happen that will prevent Brexit from happening. I am still hopeful that it can happen in a way that respects the will of the peoples of the four nations. I want to live in a country that sees itself as an equal of all others. I want to live in a country that is not only attractive to workers, students and visitors from all around the globe, but that welcomes them all with open arms and open doors. I will continue to live in such a country. At some point in the not too distant future, a decision will be taken as to whether that country remains part of the Union represented in this Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak and we have limited time. We will start with a time limit of 10 minutes.

Andrew Mitchell: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to extend the warmest possible congratulations to the new Secretary of State on joining the Cabinet—I know he has had to pop out for a short while—and I want to salute the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, he is clearly a man of integrity and principle. He worked incredibly hard in his Department.
This is the first contribution that I have made to any of the Brexit debates. It was 25 years ago that I was a Government Whip engaged in securing support for the Maastricht treaty, with Britain’s two opt-outs, so brilliantly negotiated by John Major. I learned from that experience the deep and fierce passions on Europe that are held by so many of my friends and colleagues across the House, and in particular on the Conservative Benches.
I have to say, in all honesty, that the position today is far worse in terms of internal conflict and disagreement than ever it was during the Maastricht era. Of course the divisions are not just within this side of the House; they run throughout our constituencies—mine was divided almost exactly 50:50—and between friends and family. They have led to a breakdown in collective responsibility in the Cabinet, with the consequent breakdown in normal party discipline far worse than anything we remotely saw during the parliamentary stages of Maastricht. This breakdown in relationships, these deep divisions in this place and outside, are going to be very difficult indeed to heal.
I come now to the White Paper. I was dismayed, although not surprised, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) resigned; dismayed because, despite some of the ludicrous, and at times mischievous, briefings he was subjected to, he was so clearly the right negotiator for Britain, with his business and European experience making him uniquely qualified for the task.
I have always felt throughout this process, as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, that the best interests of my constituents are served by supporting the Executive  in these very difficult negotiations: that the Legislature—that is us—should give the Executive some leeway and the benefit of the doubt. That is not an enormously dissimilar approach to the way the 27 other stakeholders in the EU are more or less rowing in behind Monsieur Barnier. But in the end, particularly in a Parliament where there is no majority, and where therefore power has so self-evidently passed from the Cabinet room to the Floor of the House of Commons, it is we, the Legislature, who will decide, and the House of Commons that will reach its verdict on the deal that the Executive negotiates. It is for that reason that the arguments for a meaningful vote are so essential and have had to prevail, as they have done, in the House.

Alex Chalk: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he agree with the maxim of the former President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, that the first rule of politics is that its practitioners must be able to count? That is so important when we come to consider our debates over the coming weeks.

Andrew Mitchell: That is a very true maxim, and one that is engraved on the walls of the Government Whips Office.
It seems to me that there are now really only two possible outcomes. The first is a deal based very largely on the Chequers settlement. Both my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) have honourably and eloquently voiced reservations and no one is going to be entirely satisfied with what has been produced, but the current Administration have basically bet the farm on the Chequers formula and will now have to repel all boarders, if I may mix my metaphors, whether from Brussels or from Somerset.
Many of us regret the Government’s decision to give in at the first whiff of grapeshot emanating from the west country earlier this week, precisely because giving in will make it more difficult to resist counter-pressure from other directions to change. It is extraordinarily unlikely that we will do better than the plan set out in the White Paper, but there ought to be enough in the broad Chequers outline for people of good will to work with and coalesce around.

Bob Neill: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend says. Does he recognise that that is also the sentiment of businesses in this country, from manufacturing through to the key financial services sector? Does he also agree that ultimately the Conservative party is a pragmatic party rather than a rigid one, and imperfect though any deal or proposal may be, it is worth going for?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a wise and sensible point.
I have just set out the first option. The alternative option, I believe, is no deal, and I fear it is as simple as that. If there is no deal, I am sure we will survive and all will be fine in 10 years’ time, but it will not be fine at the outset. No deal—at least at first—will threaten our levels of growth and risk the living standards and prospects of  those we are sent here to represent. It risks endangering the opportunities we want to see for our constituents, not least the younger ones leaving education and entering the world of work. And it will be this Administration who will be blamed: whether people voted leave or remain, the Conservative party owns this process and will be held to account for no deal. In any event, the Government need now to increase massively their planning for this eventuality and, in my submission, to report to Parliament in detail on it when we return in the autumn.
I have one final point to make. There are those who, with great eloquence, advance the case for a second referendum, but I have come to the conclusion that while it is just possible that Parliament might wish to seek public endorsement of the deal itself, it is most unlikely. That is because if we held another referendum with a different result, why not have the best of three? We see ourselves as a serious country, we have settled the matter in a significant referendum, and for better or worse we are leaving.

Hugo Swire: Could not my right hon. Friend cite as an example what happened over the Lisbon treaty and the Republic of Ireland, when its voters were invited to have a second referendum, but not until the EU had made it worth their while to vote in a different way? Does my right hon. Friend fear that that could happen here if we had a second referendum, and be very divisive?

Andrew Mitchell: For the reasons I have set out, I think another referendum would be profoundly divisive, and actually it might not advance agreement in our country and bring people back together again.
The Government must now use the summer to advance the case that they all agreed at Chequers and move towards some specific agreement with the EU. It will then be for the Government to propose, but for this House to dispose.

Hilary Benn: May I begin by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Secretary of State and to the shadow Secretary of State for not being present at the start of the debate? As Mr Speaker was aware, I was questioning the Prime Minister as a member of the Liaison Committee on the subject we are debating here now.
I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and respect the passion with which he advocates his position, although I profoundly disagree with it. I do, however, gently say to him that I think it is unfair to seek to blame civil servants for the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation when for two years they have had to watch the spectacle of Ministers and Cabinet Ministers openly arguing among themselves about the right course of action, and it was not until Chequers that the Prime Minister tried to bring them together.

Steven Baker: I did not mean to blame civil servants. I mean to blame the broadest governing class, the establishment, which is well represented in here and which clearly does not believe in leaving the European Union. I have paid tribute to civil servants over and over again. The people I have worked with have been the most outstanding professionals and I am proud to have worked with them.

Hilary Benn: I am sure that those with whom the hon. Gentleman worked will appreciate that, but there are particular civil servants who appear to have been singled out for his criticism, which I think is unfair. When we hold elected office as Ministers—there are many in this Chamber who have had that experience—it is our responsibility to take decisions and to lead. If things go wrong, we cannot blame the people who support us in our work. That responsibility falls on our own head.
I also say to the hon. Gentleman, although this is a debate for another day, that the European Union is by no means perfect, and that we need to find a new balance in our relations between self-government and international co-operation rather than destroying it, because the challenges that we face as a world will absolutely require co-operation between nation states in order to solve them. This is about balance; it is not about destruction.
We have certainly arrived at a particular moment in the Brexit process. It would be churlish not to acknowledge what the Prime Minister did at Chequers to bring most of her Cabinet together, but whether we are any further forward in practice is debatable. The truth about the White Paper is that it is a political construct as much as it is an economic one. Just as the Prime Minister is hemmed in by the disagreements within her own party, so is her proposal hemmed in by the red lines that the Government have laid down. The question that arises is: if the proposal does not fly, were on earth is the Prime Minister to go? There are two great questions, in the light of the White Paper. First, is the EU going to agree to what has been put forward? Secondly, is there a majority for it in the House of Commons?
The first question arises particularly in relation to the facilitated customs arrangement. Bluntly, will the European Union agree to let a third country—because that is what we will be when we have left—collect tariff revenues on its behalf? I have yet to be persuaded that it will agree to that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) talked about bureaucracy, and about whether any such arrangement would be ready in time for the end of the transition period. There are many of us in the House who think that remaining in the customs union would be a much better way of achieving the frictionless trade that many of us want to see.
When I questioned the Prime Minister earlier, she indicated that the Government were hoping to get most of the arrangements for the facilitated customs arrangement in place in time for the end of the transition period, but the Minister will be aware that previous Ministers, when talking about its antecedents—its parents, if you like: the customs partnership and max fac—openly acknowledged that they would not be ready until some time after the transition period had come to an end. This is very novel, and it is untried, untested and not yet agreed, but if that proved to be the case, will the Minister tell us what would fill the gap?

Paul Masterton: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the White Paper, and I share some of them, but I think that it is a deal worth fighting for. If the Prime Minister succeeds in getting the European Union to agree to this, is he seriously saying that the Labour party would vote down a deal that was good but not perfect, and walk through  the Lobby with some of my hard-line Eurosceptic colleagues so that we would end up with no deal at all, given that we both know the economic consequences that that would have for this country? Will he accept the deal or not?

Hilary Benn: I will be delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question when we have a deal—[Interruption.] We do not have a deal. We have a proposal. It is an opening bid. The time for the House of Commons to make that judgment, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, will be when the House takes the final decision. At that time, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) will see what stance each individual Member takes.

Vicky Ford: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in order to move the negotiations along it would be helpful if those on the other side of the negotiating table understood whether Labour Members were prepared to vote for a deal along the lines of the White Paper? By not answering the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), the right hon. Gentleman creates greater uncertainty for the negotiators.

Hilary Benn: I will not allow the hon. Lady to get away with putting the responsibility for the difficulties that the Government and the governing party are in, which are of their own making, on those of us on the other side of the House.

Owen Smith: Or are we the governing classes now?

Hilary Benn: I am not going to enter into that debate, either. The fundamental truth is that those in Brussels look at the chaos on the Government Benches, created by the efforts of Conservative Members of Parliament, and that weakens our ability to get a deal that is in the national interest. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) voted in favour of the customs union amendment yesterday.

Guy Opperman: She asked you a question.

Hilary Benn: I answered it. I do not know how the hon. Lady voted yesterday, but the customs union amendment would have been a way of providing much greater certainty to those with whom we are negotiating.
On Northern Ireland, the White Paper basically says nothing more about the backstop, and the reason why we do not yet have a withdrawal agreement is that there is no backstop proposal. All the discussion about the facilitated customs arrangement and the political declaration is for later, because if we do not get a withdrawal agreement, we will not get on to that, and we will not get a withdrawal agreement until we have a backstop proposal from the Government. They produced one in June and said, “There’s a bit missing,” which related to the rules on regulation, so will the Minister say whether, now that the Government have embraced a common rulebook, they plan to apply that to the backstop? It would be helpful if we could understand that.
On services, I echo what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras said. Free movement apart—I accept that issue—I do not  really understand why the Government have turned their back on a common rulebook for services, especially given what the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech about trying to maintain the same approach. On the free movement of people, we will obviously have to wait for the White Paper, but that is one of the single most important issues raised with the Exiting the European Union Committee by those who have given evidence.
The question of sovereignty goes to the heart of all of this, because the objection is that we are somehow going to enter into a state of vassalage—a word that I was not familiar with before it was uttered by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). However, the truth is that this country, which has never ceased to be sovereign, chooses to enter into agreements with other countries in which we agree to abide by the rules of the relevant organisation. That is true of the United Nations, it is true of the European convention on human rights, and it will be true of the WTO if we end up retaking our seat as an independent country. Are we really going to impale the future prospects of the British economy on red lines that arise from an utter state of dispute about the question of our sovereignty and how we need to exercise it?
The Prime Minister now needs to build a consensus, but she will not do so by giving in at the first rustle of incoming letters to the chair of the 1922 committee. I believe that there is a natural majority in the House for a sensible Brexit that ensures frictionless trade, protects the economy, keeps an open border in Northern Ireland and maintains sensible co-operation on defence, foreign policy, security, the fight against terrorism, consumer safety, scientific research, the exchange of data and broadcasting. Our task now is to enable that majority—there is no majority for no deal—to give expression to itself. The sooner the Government seek that out, the better it will be for the country’s future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I must reduce the time limit to seven minutes.

Bill Cash: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) because he talked about sovereignty, although he rather distorted the focus of it, to put it bluntly, and I will explain why in a moment.
Brexit is ultimately about our democracy, our sovereignty and our self-government. All the other issues, including our right to free trade with the rest of the world, are subsidiary to the questions of sovereignty, self-government and democracy because they flow from them. This is the ultimate test. To get our sovereignty and our democracy, and to get it right, we must govern ourselves. I am deeply concerned about the White Paper and the Chequers settlement for that reason, and I will set out what I believe will be the practical outcome.
We have managed to achieve something quite remarkable, which is to turn the gold of democracy into the base metal of subservience—a new kind of alchemy. In other words, we have effectively turned leaving into not leaving in a whole range of areas, despite the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 and despite the  EU (Withdrawal) Act itself, the promises made in the Conservative party manifesto and, of course, the result of the 2016 referendum.
The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, unanimously criticised the Government a few months ago. We argued that they are supplicating themselves to the EU and accepting its guidelines, contrary to our lawful departure under article 50, which gives us the legal authority to leave under the treaties. That is a massive strategic mistake. We have summoned Mr Olly Robbins to appear before our Committee and, although the Prime Minister originally was not prepared to allow him to come, he will be appearing before the Committee—that was resolved this morning.

Simon Hoare: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but is it not the case that, whenever we enter into a free trade agreement with another country, we will abide by the rules and regulations that it seeks to apply to imported goods? The fact that we choose to do so is our choice, as made either by the Executive or by Parliament. Whether we do a free trade agreement with the EU, New Zealand or Japan is immaterial. We will always have to follow the third party’s guidelines and meet its requirements in order to export to that country.

Bill Cash: My hon. Friend is slightly missing the point. I am talking about the legal framework of the EU itself, which imposes on us a requirement, through the 1972 Act, to accept the rules. I will come on to that in a moment, because I believe that what is happening under the Chequers proposal and under the White Paper will, in many respects, make it worse than it is already.
The big picture is about why we had to leave the EU to regain our democracy. The decisions imposed on us through the 1972 Act—those decisions are imposed through the Council of Ministers—as my Committee exposed a few years ago, will in practice be continued under the common rulebook and will continue to be taken by a majority vote of the 27 without our being there. The Prime Minister even wrote a pamphlet about that in 2007 in which she said
“Parliament is supposed to be Sovereign but in practice it is not.”
That will be made even worse under the White Paper. We will have no voting rights, no blocking minority and a mere useless consultation.
The White Paper mirrors the EEA arrangements, which slavishly follow the decisions of the EU Council of Ministers. Furthermore, given that the Government will already have agreed to the international obligations it will have entered into, it is absurd to suggest that under the “threat of consequences” during the scrutiny process, the MPs appointed to a Committee run by the Whips would ever overturn the Government’s agreed rules. The manner in which the common rulebook will absorb European rules and European jurisdiction through the creation by the UK Government of international obligations binding of itself, with the deliberate connivance of the Government and the Whips, will predetermine the outcome of the parliamentary scrutiny when it reaches the Committee. In other words, it will fictionalise real sovereignty. This White Paper is a sovereignty car crash.
As for the European Court of Justice, the former president of the EFTA court—I have just put this to the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee—clearly stated only a few days ago:
“the UK would recognise that the European Court of Justice is supreme on the interpretation of EU law.”
He went on to say that under the independent arbitration we would agree
“to refer questions to the ECJ”.
The White Paper itself concedes that the UK makes an
“upfront choice to commit to ongoing harmonisation with the relevant EU rules and requirements”.
Thus, the ECJ will determine not only the interpretation, but the outcome of any disputes, so it will be calling the shots.
I wish briefly to turn to the issues of foreign policy and of Germany, which has been very much underplayed for many, many years in this context. Of course we want to work with other neighbours in Europe—I have no problem with that. However, this problem, which has been with us for so many generations—over the past 20 or 30 years—has simply been ignored to far too great an extent. It is clear that Germany calls the shots, and everybody knows it. To see that we have only to look at what has been going on in Greece; what went on in Ireland when it had the crash; and what happened to Italy, whose EU Affairs Minister recently described the euro as “a German prison”.
The reality is that Germany tore up the Dublin regulation, which led to this incredible surge or refugees, some of which were justified and some of which certainly were not. We have seen how Germany broke the stability and growth pact with impunity, but ensured the manner in which it is applied to other European member states. The result has been that the people of Europe are voting with their feet, and it has also led to the rise of the far right, not only in Germany, but elsewhere. That is one of the things I have argued against ever since I first wrote about this in early 1990. Anyone who believes we could remain in the present EU, from which we have escaped in the nick of time, is simply living in cloud cuckoo land.
I wish to add something about those who would want to reverse this process, although I am not pointing the finger at anybody or any group of people in particular. I have heard of rats leaving a sinking ship but never of rats trying to sink a leaving ship. We really must leave this EU, above all else. We need to regain our democracy and our self-government, and not be dictated to by qualified majority vote, which we have mistakenly accepted for 40-odd years. We live in a world of massive change. We now have the opportunity to decide our own history, our own future, our own economy and our own destiny. People have fought and died for this over generations. We wish to co-operate, but not to be subservient.

Richard Burden: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate, Mr Speaker. I wish to start by declaring an interest: I chair the all-party parliamentary motor group, which receives secretarial support from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Motorsports Industry Association and the RAC Foundation.
I want to say a few words about why the stakes are so high for that industry and sector in terms of getting our approach to Brexit right. That is not a narrow parliamentary debating point. It is not about which faction is on the up or on the way down in the Conservative party—or indeed in any other organisation. We are talking about the future of that sector in this country. It is a sector that brings in £77.5 billion every year in revenue and which makes up almost 10% of manufacturing output. It is an industry on which literally hundreds of thousands of jobs up and down the country depend. This is about the livelihoods of people in the west midlands and in other parts of the UK. It is about reality. I want to focus my remarks on why, despite the vote earlier this week, I really think that continued customs union membership has to be a negotiating objective of our future relationship with Europe and why the so-called facilitated customs arrangement—whether it be max fac, quite fac, relatively fac or not very fac at all—just really will not cut it.
Every day, trucks deliver £35 million-worth of parts to the UK. Most of those are then shipped back to the European Union. The whole industry relies on a delicate system of just-in-time delivery, with the ability to move parts and goods within the European Union quickly and efficiently and with costs kept to a minimum. Any barrier to that frictionless movement will result in delays at the border, additional customs bureaucracy and extra costs to business.
Just think about Operation Stack and about how quickly the roads to the channel ports got gridlocked when industrial action in France caused delays three years ago. It cost the freight industry £750,000 every single day. Just think about how quickly customs checks at our ports would cause the same kind of snarl-ups and about the millions that it would cost the automotive sector. I say to Members: do not just take that from me; listen to what the industry itself is saying. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders issued this warning:
“Any customs model that fails to replicate the benefits of UK automotive’s current trading relationship with the EU is likely to create delays, disrupt highly efficient “just-in-time” manufacturing and undermine competitiveness.”
As its chief executive Mike Hawes said in May:
“Continuation of customs union membership is a minimum for the car industry. ”
Just listen to the warning from Jaguar Land Rover, which said:
“a hard Brexit would cost £1.2 billion a year in trade tariffs and make it unprofitable to remain in the UK”.
Earlier this year, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee warned:
“There are no advantages to be gained from Brexit for the automotive industry for the foreseeable future”.
Its warning must be taken seriously. It said that the most that we can hope for is
“an exercise in damage limitation”
Unfortunately, on current form, the Government are even falling short of that objective.

Matt Western: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Specifically, does he share my frustration that there was not greater support from the Conservative Benches for new clause 18, which would give that default—the customs union—at the end of January 2019 to give that reassurance and safeguard to the industry?

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If there is one thing that business says time and again it is that it wants certainty. It is the idea that, even if one’s objectives do not go quite right, one has something else there that can provide that certainty for the future. That “backstop” of customs union membership would have provided that much needed certainty.
How can we describe the Government’s approach in the long-awaited White Paper? Well, “courageous” is the term that Sir Humphrey Appleby probably would have used. Others may describe it as fantasy. Nowhere else is that more obvious than in relation to what it describes as the facilitated customs arrangement. If we read through it, we see gobbledegook explanations that are so opaque that they could have been written by Sir Humphrey himself.
Just look at how the White Paper suggests we deal with imports from third countries arriving in the EU for onward transfer to the UK and vice versa. The Government say that the EU’s customs approach will be “mirrored” at the same time as we will be imposing our own tariffs and customs arrangements elsewhere. As far as I can see, this is entirely reliant on a non-existent track and trace system to verify origin and tariff application, but until that technology exists, we will need to check everything meticulously at the border to apply different tariffs and different rules to different things. Put together, that means that the UK is taking on a huge bureaucratic and systematic burden for every single item imported to, or transferring through, our ports and slowing down the movement of goods in the process and causing the very friction that we always say that we want to avoid. But now, after the last couple of days in this Chamber, the Government have managed to twist themselves into even more knots by kowtowing to the Brexit fanatics on their own Back Benches. Doing so has made the White Paper’s proposals, problematic as they were, even more unworkable.
Of course, we know that the motivation of at least some Conservative Members is to create a proposal so chaotic and so unreasonable that we crash out with no deal and fulfil some sort of long-held Eurosceptic fantasy project. That is why I do not believe that the Government’s suggested approach will work. Far better and far simpler to remain in a customs union with the European Union so that trade between the EU and the UK can be truly frictionless; so that there really is simplicity and maximum facilitation of goods arriving from third countries, with one easily understood set of external tariffs; so that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland; and so that we can continue to benefit from the trade deals that the EU has with 68 other countries, without having to renegotiate them.
We could have made the resolution of this whole thing a lot simpler if the Prime Minister had not said that single market membership was a red line in the first place. Were it not for the chaos and the confusion that the Government have created, we could, by now, be an awful lot further on than we are. That is why I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to listen to the voices of industry when they say that the only reliable way to achieve the frictionless trade that we need is to remain in a customs union with the European Union.

John Baron: I want to address my remarks to the two core tenets of the EU: the customs union and the single market.  I think there is a danger in this place, and perhaps in certain sections of the community outside, of taking the view that people did not know what they voted for when they voted to leave. Not only is that incorrect, but it can come across as very patronising and condescending.
I think we know what people voted for. The twin tenets of the EU are the single market and the customs union. If that point needs to be reinforced, we have only to look at the two manifestos of the two main political parties at the last general election. They confirmed that we would be leaving the customs union and the single market, and 80% of the electorate voted knowing that to be the case. I take exception to the view that somehow the British electorate did not know what they were voting for. It is particularly important to say that, because I believe that if this Parliament does not accept the will of the British people, we risk pushing the mainstream to the edges of the political spectrum. That would not be a healthy development for democracy in this country.

Peter Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the information that the Government sent out before the referendum was that even in the event of a leave vote, their intention was to remain in the single market? Is it not also the case that the Government won a majority on a manifesto that said they would stay in the single market, and then lost that majority on a manifesto that said they would leave it?

John Baron: I think it is quite straightforward. We had a referendum on the question of whether people wanted to stay or leave. The decision was to leave, and the political parties woke up to that fact and put that decision at the heart of their manifestos, on which we then went to the country. I remind the House that it is there in black and white in both manifestos: we will leave the customs union, and we will leave the single market. My concern about the Chequers agreement is that having gone to the country on that basis, there seems to be a bit of a fudge that needs explaining by the Government.
Let us take the common rulebook and the customs union. It is no accident that the EU has had a problem negotiating free trade deals with countries outside the EU. It does not have a free trade deal with the US, with Australia or with New Zealand. It struggles on emerging markets—big economies like Brazil, India and China. The reason for that, in large part, is that it has protectionist non-tariff barriers that a lot of countries cannot abide. If we incorporate those protectionist non-tariff barriers into our own regulations, that will make our task of negotiating trade deals that much more difficult. It will therefore take away from us one of the key upsides of Brexit, which is to negotiate our own trade deals.
We all have our own views of President Trump, but one thing that he was very direct about, stating the blindingly obvious, was that if one incorporates protectionist non-tariff barriers as part of one’s own regulations, it will—surprise, surprise—be more difficult to negotiate trade deals. That is why there is concern among Conservative Members about the common rulebook. If we incorporate those rules, it makes trade deals more difficult.

Wera Hobhouse: Is that not exactly what President Trump is currently doing—building trade barriers, because he is putting up tariffs?

John Baron: There are pluses and minuses with President Trump, perhaps, but I think he is trying to be a very good friend of the UK. Unlike President Obama, who said that the UK would be at the back of the queue, it is quite clear that President Trump does want to do some form of trade deal with the UK. He is stating the obvious when he says that incorporating protectionist non-tariff barriers is going to make trade deals much more difficult.
Let me move on to freedom of movement. The SNP spokesman said that racism is on the rise in this country. There is a sort of implication that if somebody voted to leave, they were somehow anti-immigration. That is completely wrong. Under the current immigration policy, because we are members of the EU we discriminate against people wishing to come to this country from outside the EU. We cannot say no to immigrants from Europe or from the EU, but we have to say no to immigrants coming in from outside the EU. That, in any language, is discriminatory. One of the main benefits of Brexit will be that we will be able to forge an immigration policy that will be not only controlled but fair—it will not discriminate on the basis of nationality as the current policy does.
On the second big idea, we are being told that with a mobility framework, freedom of movement will end. However, I worry slightly that it is not being clearly explained how a mobility framework will be any different from freedom of movement. That needs fleshing out by the Government. If I know anything about my constituents and constituents across the country who voted for Brexit, we want a controlled but fair immigration system, and the Government need to better explain how the mobility framework is going to deliver that. Without that explanation, I think they are going to struggle in selling this package to the country, because we no longer want an immigration system that discriminates against the rest of the world.
I want to make a final point about leaving on WTO terms. There has been a little bit of nonsense spoken about this issue. There have been too many lawyers in this debate and not enough businesspeople. Whoever has been exposed to business will know that one can have frictionless supply chains crossing customs arrangements. It happens right across the globe, particularly in the far east.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

John Baron: No, I have taken one intervention from the hon. Lady and I am not going to take another. I have taken my two.
There are these arrangements right across the globe, and they are not a hindrance to trade. We trade profitably with many countries outside the EU on such terms, and that trade is prospering. Those countries are often faster growing than the EU.
The idea that we must protect the supply chains and that leaving on WTO terms would disrupt them is utter nonsense. Look around the world and at the far east in particular, where a number of complex supply chains cross customs arrangements without any friction. A particular example of that is Japan, which has outsourced much of its manufacturing capability to countries such as China because of the strength of its yen. The bottom line is that that has made for good trade and actually it has helped to lower costs.
If we ignore the wishes of the British electorate as expressed at the referendum, I really do worry that we will push the mainstream in this country towards the extremes of the political spectrum, because people will have lost faith in this place to deliver what they clearly believe they voted for, which is to leave the EU, and that meant leaving the customs union and the single market. Anything less than that will be seen as a betrayal by the British electorate.

Tom Brake: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role—we wish him the best of British. He will know that my views and his diverge as much as is possible on this subject. Although I could point out that my views are closer to those of his constituents than his are, but perhaps he can point out that his views are slightly closer to those of my constituents than mine are, such is the way things are working on Brexit.
I am confused by the contribution of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). There are clearly constituencies where every single person who spoke to him was raising the single market and customs union in the run-up to the EU referendum, whereas in my constituency every single person talking to me was talking about immigration. I cannot recall someone saying during the referendum campaign, “I want to be out of the single market and customs union.” May I point out, that if the European Union does not currently have a trade deal with India, that is because of our then Home Secretary—now our Prime Minister—rejecting the trade deal because it would have required issuing visas to Indians? He needs to look more carefully at some of the reasons why such things have not happened.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the number of migrants to the UK went up in 2017 compared with 2016 because there was growth in non-EU migration, which is something he omitted to point out in his comments.

John Baron: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the practical effect of the immigration policy we are pursuing is to discriminate against countries outside the EU?

Tom Brake: I agree that there is clearly a difference between the treatment of EU citizens and migrants from outside the European Union, but the number of non-EU migrants has gone up, which has more than compensated for the numbers of EU citizens coming to the United Kingdom. I assume he welcomes that.
I see the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is back in his place. The Conservative party was a pragmatic party, but I am afraid to say it is clearly no longer such. It is now very much a party driven by ideology. I suspect that is why he is as uncomfortable with it as he is.

Bob Neill: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to consider this: at least virtually the totality of the Conservative party was here to take part in the debate, which cannot be said about other parties. Will he also bear in mind that what matters to both his constituents and mine, in areas heavily dependent on the City and financial services, is that we ensure security of access to  the best available talent and, above all, a form of regulatory alignment that goes beyond the proposals in the White Paper? They are a starting point, and I support the White Paper, but we need to go further to give the City the ability to bring in the billions of pounds of tax revenue that subsidise the public services of everyone in this country, including leave voters as well as remain voters.

Tom Brake: I am very happy to say that I agree entirely with the point the hon. Gentleman has made. We need to make sure that the City can continue to operate and that we are able to attract the skills we need.
The subject of this debate is the future relationship between the UK and the EU. I am very clear, and this will not be a surprise to anybody, that I would like us to stay in the European Union. I believe that that is still going to be possible, but for it to happen people will clearly have to vote for it in a final say on the deal. How do we get to a final say on the deal?
The first thing we need is for article 50 to be extended. I know the Prime Minister has said on a couple of occasions that that is not going to happen, but the likelihood of securing any sort of deal before March 2019 is for the birds. It is simply not going to happen, so an extension will be required. An extension would be needed to enable the legislation required for a final say on the deal to be passed, as well as to enable such a campaign and the votes at the end of it. I think it is perfectly possible that the EU may be about to offer to extend article 50, or the UK could of course seek to do it.
The other thing that is clearly required if there is to be a final say on the deal and a people’s vote is to take place is that a majority—I would say a clear majority—of people have to vote to stay in the European Union. At the point that such an election campaign took place, there would in reality be only two options: either voting for whatever deal the Government had secured, which I suspect would probably be no deal at all; or voting to stay in the European Union.
Why would people vote to stay in the EU? First, there is Trump. Frankly, if Trump is our friend, then who needs enemies? Trump has made the world a more dangerous place. In my view, he cannot be counted on to provide security. We and, yes, others in the European Union will have to step up to the plate to do that, but I do not think he can be counted on to do so.
We need to develop an offer that appeals not just to remainers, but to those who voted to leave. That will require some movement on the question of freedom of movement. I am sure that Members are aware that the issue of migration within the EU is a really big challenge for its members. At the European Council a couple of weeks ago, that was what they were worried about. Frankly, they were worried not about Brexit, but about migration within the European Union. They are very focused on that, and progress on it might be possible.
We also need to be able to demonstrate that the UK would be an active member of the EU and fighting to reform it, so that it would not simply be the EU carrying on as it was, but an EU subject to change. Of course, we would need to sell much more effectively than we have ever done before the advantages of EU membership.  The Government sometimes try to claim the credit for things that the EU have done. Most recently, for instance, they have done so in relation to strengthening the rights of millions of British citizens who take package holidays or book linked travel. Our Government have claimed credit for something that the European Union had actually done. When the EU does things that are positive, we need to make sure that we talk about them.
The other thing we need to do is to set out the impact of voting for the Government’s deal. I am afraid that what the Government are offering as a result of the Chequers statement is no deal. Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I am afraid that it is very clear that the purpose and objective of ERG members is to leave us in a position where we have no deal. That is what they are trying to achieve, and that was the purpose of their amendments, which comprehensively trashed the Chequers statement. I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister is so weak that she had no alternative but to walk into their trap.
What does no deal mean? Some Members seem to think that no deal would be a temporary aberration that would cause us a few problems for a couple of weeks, but that is clearly not the view of the port of Dover and Airbus or, for instance, of people concerned about medicines coming into the UK, their availability and how quickly they come to market. No deal will not cause problems just for a few weeks or so. I suspect that it will mean five years of difficulties for the United Kingdom.
One thing we will not do is allow the Brexiters to say that this is the European Union’s fault—the hon. Member for Wycombe made this very clear. The Brexiters claimed that this would be a straightforward process that would all be over and done with overnight. They said that it should be very simple, and that trade deals would be struck with a landmass 10 times the size of the European Union, which would, of course, probably need to include a few planets as well, as that is not physically possible. They made that claim. They pretended that it was going to be straightforward. If we end up in a no deal scenario, a catastrophe for the United Kingdom, that is their fault and we will not let them get away with it.
To adapt the words of the outgoing Foreign Secretary, it is not too late in my view to save the United Kingdom. We can provide the people with a way out of this ideological folly. I am not too scared to test the will of the people and I am not too scared to be bound by the result. Why are Ministers?

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I would like to accommodate a further two speakers, but that will require a generosity of spirit on the part of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), who I shall call next, and that is up to him.

Hugo Swire: We can all quibble about how this whole process has been handled, from the perhaps premature triggering of article 50 through the backstop arrangements and how much we will pay the EU. Indeed, some of us have continuing concerns about the continuing reach of the European Court of Justice—

John Bercow: Order. My apologies, I should have formally announced the five-minute limit.

Hugo Swire: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We are where we are, and this White Paper is the first time, in all fairness, that those with whom we seek to negotiate will have some idea of what we seek to negotiate. That is important in itself. We need to learn the art of compromise. We did not get a clear indication one way or the other either in this House or in the country, and we should now compromise and do what is it the best interests of the British people. It seems to me that this is the best we have so far.
The most important thing to me is business certainty. This country has had an extraordinary record of inward investment, and that is a climate that we have unfortunately begun to damage through all these deliberations over where we are now heading. We have heard perhaps too much from the big businesses and multinationals, all of whom employ huge organisations or have people to represent them, such as the CBI. We heard very little from small businesses. Those are the businesses of our constituents. This is often forgotten, but there are only 2,000 plcs in this country; 0.3% of UK business, employing 2.6 million people and providing 8% of the workforce. There are 4.8 million family-run businesses in this country, and they make up 87% of all UK private sector businesses —5% are manufacturing firms, and 19% are construction firms. They employ 12.2 million people, 38% of the 32.2 million UK workers. That is 46.5 % of UK private sector employment in these smaller, often family-run companies. They generated £149 billion in tax in 2016. These are the companies that we seek to protect. These are the companies that need to grow. These are the companies we need to enshrine in a framework with the EU that ensures they can continue to prosper. They are the lifeline of the economy and the lifeblood of our constituencies.
I shall end soon, Mr Speaker, but let me just say that those who seek a second referendum basically want to introduce a new range of questions and to overturn what the British people decided the first time. We saw second referendums in Denmark on Maastricht and in Ireland on the Nice treaty. In 2008, the first time that Ireland was invited to reflect on the Lisbon treaty, 53.4 % rejected it, versus 46.6%. Lo and behold, a year later, after negotiations with the EU, the Irish people were invited to vote again and voted in favour. You know what? They were told at the time that they did not understand the question. They were told that it was too complicated for the people—the same accusations that people make in a very condescending way against those people who voted to leave. I voted to remain, but the difference is that I abide by the wishes of the British people—I do not question them, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) did—and that is what the rest of the House should now do.

Owen Smith: For the avoidance of doubt, let me start by saying that I am absolutely campaigning for a second referendum. I am doing so because I want to give the people of this country an opportunity to turn away from Brexit, which I think will be damaging to their prosperity and to the security of all of us in this country. I will continue to make that argument in all sincerity.
Today’s debate and the events of the past 10 days have been edifying and terrifying in equal measure. They have exposed the full horror of the Tory civil war and, more importantly, the gravity of the risks that all the people in this country are now being exposed to as a result of the potential outcomes of that Tory civil war. We have seen resignations and revelations, and even the sinister, though softly spoken, speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who is now not in his place, threatening in effect his Front Benchers—the governing classes, as he put it, by which I think he was coyly referring to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other people advising the Conservative party.
Those threats have been heard in the country and they have revealed, as other speeches have today, that some of the Brexiteers have always wanted sovereignty to absolutely trump security or prosperity. They have always wanted an isolated, independent Britain. They have wanted to row back to a fantastical past that cannot deliver in the modern era. We in the Opposition have to acknowledge that, and that the scale of risk that the country faces is grave. The Prime Minister’s White Paper was a brave attempt to try to recognise that, and to at last acknowledge that an integrated, involved relationship with the European Union is not only necessary but inevitable. There are over 100 references in the White Paper to common rules, common partnerships, common objectives, the common rulebook—just about every page is littered with such examples, which is precisely why it sparked the neuralgia on the European Research Group Benches, and precisely why we have effectively seen the coup of the last week and the capitulation of the Front Benchers to the ERG.
We must realise how grave the risks are, because we are now blithely talking about an exit on World Trade Organisation terms, as though that is something that we can countenance in this House. We cannot. The risks are enormous. Calculate what it would cost our country in extra borrowing, which is something that the Tories used to bang on about endlessly when I first came into the House. “You are hanging debt around the neck of future generations,” is what we used to hear from George Osborne and David Cameron. The reality is that the hit that the country will take—the extra borrowing that we will require as a result of the hole in our public finances—if we pursue the Chequers model is around £40 billion per annum in the long run, at 15 years out. We will not, unfortunately, get to a good place in 10 years, as one hon. Member said. The Government’s own analysis says that we will be £40 billion worse off.
What happens if we pursue WTO terms—if we take the no deal option that is now being openly, terrifyingly advocated by so many on the Tory Benches? We heard earlier that there is ostensibly now a majority among the ERG group for that, and much more than the 40 that we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe would vote for it. According to the Government’s analysis, the impact would be a 7.7% reduction in our GDP. That equates to about £150 billion less per year. It is more than we spend on the NHS. We are talking as though we are about to throw away the entire annual expenditure of the NHS to satisfy the fantasies of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and others, who have been banging on about this not just in the past few years, but for 30 years.

Luke Graham: The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of criticism of the Conservative party, but does he accept that there have been over 100 resignations on the Labour side of the House, and that the customs union amendment failed because Labour Members voted with the Government? It is fine to criticise, but he is wrong to say that this is just a Conservative problem; it is right across the House.

Owen Smith: I am criticising, in large measure, a small part of the Conservative party that is currently holding the Treasury Bench to ransom, but I would absolutely condemn the actions of Labour Members who failed to support the amendments this week and so allowed the Tories not to put in place some of the backstops that would mitigate the gravest risks we face—the risks of capital flight, job losses and massive borrowing being hung around the necks of our children; the risk to our manufacturing industry; the risk that our pharmaceutical industry, in which I worked for many years, will be unable to supply medicines; the risk of losing prosperity and security; and the risks in Northern Ireland. How can we countenance allowing any return to violence, which the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland warned would be the consequence of a hard Brexit? How can we countenance being so reckless as to allow that to happen?
We have to fight this at every turn. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will listen and understand that there is no such thing as a good Brexit or a “jobs first” Brexit. We have to acknowledge that there is just the hard Brexit now being proposed by Members opposite. We have to stand up for the only way in which we can reconsider this—a people’s vote. Trust democracy, trust the people, and ask them to choose between this sovereignty fantasy and the reality and prosperity we need.

Paul Blomfield: After the last couple of days, today’s debate has something of the feel of the morning after the night before. Indeed, it has been a sobering debate, reflecting the depth of the crisis that we are in. Two years on from the referendum, the Government are still unable to speak on behalf of the British people. The most important negotiations the country has faced since the second world war are being led by the most dysfunctional Government in living memory.
It does not have to be like this. The Prime Minister was right at Mansion House to say we had to face up to hard facts, but that meant facing down those in her party who put their ideological hostility to the EU before the interests of the country. If she had faced up to the facts two years ago—if she had said then that the country had voted to leave the EU but by a painfully close margin, and that it was a decision to depart but not to destroy our economy, and if she had said that we would leave the EU but remain in a customs union and close to the single market and the members of the agencies and partnerships we had built together—she could have secured a clear majority in this House and built a consensus in the country, which had been so bitterly divided by the referendum.
But she did not. Instead, she handed a veto to the European Research Group—the people who have sought to undermine not just herself at every step but every one  of her predecessors. They are, as John Major commented recently, even more hard-line than those he faced. They are less than 10% of this House but are calling the shots. The tail is wagging the dog. They are demanding the red lines that have held us back—no single market, no customs union, no European Court of Justice, no agencies. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she put that proposition to the British people in last June’s general election. She sought a mandate for an extreme Brexit, but she did not get it. She went into that election with a majority and came out without one.
I remind the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who sought to misquote our manifesto, as others have done, that at that election we said:
“We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper”—
as we would this one—
“and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses”.

John Baron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Blomfield: I will not, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s points and we cannot get into a detailed exchange.
The result of the Prime Minister’s approach has been paralysis, not simply on Brexit but on the other crises facing our country. The Government have neither the authority to deal with Brexit nor the ability to tackle the issues that led to it. There has been a dawning realisation from the Prime Minister that those early red lines were a mistake, but each time she tries to step over them, she has been hauled back by the extremists within her party.
At Chequers, it did seem that the Prime Minister was beginning to face up to the hard facts—to break free from the icy grip of the European Research Group. Not far enough, not soon enough, but tentative steps towards reality, towards a customs settlement and a regulatory alignment demanded by business—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden)—and also necessary to resolve the issue of the Northern Ireland border.
Of course, the former Brexit Secretary was right when he endorsed Donald Trump's view that the plan would “kill” the prospect of a US-UK deal; and of course, it was just a starting point, not the end point of negotiations. It would inevitably involve further movement by the Government. Knowing that, the ERG tore it to shreds, and Monday night’s debacle was the last nail in the coffin. Rather than defeat the amendments—as they could have, overwhelmingly—the Government rolled over and accepted wrecking amendments that left their White Paper dead in the water. The Minister shakes his head, but if there was any doubt about its death, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) laid it to rest today in what was, frankly, a chilling contribution.
While the Prime Minister turns on those in her own party who would welcome the Chequers plan, threatening them, she embraces those who would destroy her, and she continues to bring them into Government. Having resigned, the hon. Member for Wycombe was succeeded as a Brexit Minister by his predecessor as chair of the ERG, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) —who, of course, joins another former chair, the hon.  Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman). It is beginning to look as if there is a secondment scheme going on between the ERG and the Brexit ministerial team.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Blomfield: No, I will not; I have not the time. I would love to, but I have not the time.
As I say, it is beginning to look as if there is a secondment scheme. So we may yet see the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) make his way down to the Front Bench—or perhaps he thinks he has more power where he is.
Sixteen months into the negotiations, the White Paper says that the Government will now
“charge the UK’s negotiating team to engage with the EU’s at pace”.
The time for “pace” was long ago, but better late than never. It is 16 months since the House set the clock ticking, and in three months we need to resolve the deal. Whatever the polls say now, the public will not thank politicians who deliver a damaging Brexit based on false promises.
Without the threats and bullying that Members faced last night, there was a majority across the House in favour of a sensible approach—one that respects the referendum result, one that protects our constituents’ jobs and livelihoods. If the Government are not willing or are not able to deliver that sensible result, in the months ahead it will be the duty of this House to step in.

Robin Walker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). He talked about what people had been saying two years ago; of course, the leader of his own party was saying two years ago that we should just trigger article 50 and damn the consequences, and we should not worry about planning and preparing.
The White Paper sets out the right Brexit deal—which will deliver on the result of the referendum, and take back control over our money, laws and borders—and makes detailed proposals for a principled and pragmatic Brexit. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions today, and for the many congratulations to my new Secretary of State, to which I add my own. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). He will not be surprised that I disagree with much of his analysis, but I recognise his dedication and his passion for this subject. I thank him for his work in our Department, and for his constant courtesy to all our officials.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—who notified me that, unfortunately, he would have to leave early—spoke about deep divisions on the referendum, but also about the need for people of good will to work together and come together to deliver a successful outcome. I have always believed in that, and it is exactly what we must do in relation to the constructive proposals in the White Paper.
I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). Both he and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) included colourful political commentaries in their speeches,  but I think that, coming from a party that has experienced 103 Front-Bench resignations, those should be taken with a pinch of salt. He actually had very little to say about the topic of this debate. What he said about the White Paper was based on taking snippets out of context, which I do not think is a helpful or constructive way to debate.
We talked about the proposal for a free trade area in goods. This would be enabled by a common rulebook for goods, including agri-food; participation in EU agencies that provide authorisation for goods in highly regulated sectors; and the phased introduction of a new facilitated customs arrangement. The arrangement would remove the need for customs checks and controls between the UK and the EU as if they were a combined customs territory, enabling the UK to control its own tariffs to trade with the rest of the world and ensure that businesses pay the right tariff or no tariff. Put simply, it means neither the UK nor the EU imposing tariff barriers on one another that do not exist today.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke passionately about the automotive sector. I believe this is an approach that many in the automotive sector, including those I met over lunch today from Bosch, actually welcome and support. They have said that they would want to get a good hearing in EU member states. In combination with no tariffs on any goods moving between the UK and the EU, these arrangements will avoid new friction at the border and protect integrated supply chains that span both territories. We have heard from a wide range of international and multinational businesses that they would support that approach, but, crucially, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) said, it is one that would deliver for many UK small and medium-sized enterprises that are part of the supply chains. We should never forget the importance of those SMEs.
We heard concerns from Government Members about the common rulebook and parliamentary sovereignty. The UK has played a crucial role in shaping the rules over the past 40 years. They do not change very regularly. They are relatively stable and are supported by a large share of our manufacturing, agricultural and farming businesses.

Bill Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Robin Walker: I cannot. I am afraid I do not have the time to give way.
High standards in food and product safety are something all our constituents value. As we saw around debates on the TTIP negotiations, our constituents are unlikely to want any trade deal or arrangement that lowers standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) pointed out, both the Government and Opposition parties were elected on a promise that we would be able to strike international trade deals. That is a very important point. Our proposals, unlike those from the Opposition, will allow the UK to negotiate new international trade agreements in line with our priorities and interests, including on goods, services and investment. This could include arrangements with the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The UK will explore accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, consistent with our future relationship with the EU and domestic  priorities. In that context, my right hon. Friend the Trade Secretary recently announced the first public consultations on our future trade agreement negotiations with global partners, which we were not able to do in the TTIP context because that was a negotiation conducted on our behalf by the European Union. I sat on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central when we scrutinised those proposals at one remove.
I have talked a little about goods. I want to address the important point on services raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). We want a comprehensive but different deal on services and digital, which allows us to exercise greater regulatory freedom in an area where the UK is a world leader. This will not involve adopting a common rulebook for services, as proposed for goods. Instead, we are seeking an ambitious deal for services, which will, among other things, minimise new trade barriers to service provision, allow UK firms to establish in the EU and cover mutual recognition of professional qualifications. On financial services, we are proposing a new economic and regulatory partnership in financial services. That makes sense because, unlike goods, services are not affected by frictions at the border. They are not subject to tariffs or customs. Unlike the vast majority of manufactured goods and agri-food products, most services are not subject to specific standards and regulatory frameworks. The UK is a world leader in services and in the regulation of services. I suspect we will continue to be so.
The Government’s proposals deliver a balance—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) called for a balance—that respects the result of the referendum and the decision of the UK public to take back control of the UK’s laws, borders and money, while supporting growth and maintaining security co-operation. Importantly, they safeguard the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK while reclaiming the UK’s sovereignty. They protect our economic interests, supporting supply chains and jobs all over the UK, and delivering global opportunities for trade.
The UK will leave the European Union in March. The proposals in the White Paper mean that as we leave we will be a close friend, ally and partner of the EU and a major market for it. Our economy will continue to be strong.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

EUROPEAN STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE (MEMBERSHIP)

Ordered,
That Kirsty Blackman, Nic Dakin, Mr Philip Dunne, Sir David Evennett, Ms Angela Eagle, Vicky Ford, Patrick Grady, Trudy Harrison, Julia Lopez, Ian C Lucas, Sir Patrick McLoughlin, Bridget Phillipson, Mary Robinson, Andrew Selous, Jo Stevens and Liz Twist be members of the European Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Mims Davies.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (19 JULY)

Ordered,
That, at the sitting of the House on Thursday 19 July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—(Mims Davies.)

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL (4 SEPTEMBER)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No 10(2)(b), the sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 4 September shall begin at 11.30 am, shall be suspended from 1.30 pm to 4.30 pm and may then continue for up to a further three hours.—(Mims Davies.)

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6))

International Development

That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Eleventh Replenishment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 20 June, be approved.—(Mims Davies.)
Question agreed to.
[Interruption.]

John Bercow: I can tell that these matters are of intense and consuming interest to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). Their interest can scarcely be overstated in this important matter.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6))

Public Procurement

That the draft Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.—(Mims Davies.)
Question agreed to.

John Bercow: And finally in this sequence—colleagues bear with me; members of the public do not be too bored—we come to motion No. 10 on energy.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6))

Energy

That the draft Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Period) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 13 June, be approved.—(Mims Davies.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - WELSH PERFORMERS LIST

Susan Elan Jones: I rise to present a petition of residents of Hanmer and Bettisfield in the Clywd South constituency.
The petition states:
The petitioners…request that the House of Commons urges the Government to legislate in order to ensure that a GP may work in any part of the UK; further to allowing…“English” GPs to work in Welsh GP practices without being included on the Welsh Practitioners List.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Hanmer, Bettisfield and Clwyd South,
Declares that GPs having to be listed on the Welsh Performers List in order to practice as a GP in Wales is discriminatory and an unnecessary barrier to attracting GPs to work in Wales.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to legislate in order to ensure that a GP may work in any part of the UK; further to allowing a GPs’ Performers List in any other part of the UK; and further to allowing “English” GPs to work in Welsh GP practices without being included on the Welsh Practitioners List.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002211]

PETITION - HOME EDUCATION: DRAFT GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION

Steve Double: I rise to present a petition on behalf of parents in my constituency who home-educate their children. My constituents feel that, while the views of local authorities have been sought in issuing the guidance, the views of those most directly involved—the parents—have not been sought. The petitioners therefore request:
that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of St Austell and Newquay constituency,
Declare that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002220]

PETITION - HOME EDUCATION: DRAFT GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I rise to present two petitions. The first is on behalf of my constituents who wish to have better consultation with home educators in drawing up Department for Education guidance on this topic.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
Following is the full text of the petition.
[The petition of residents of United Kingdom,
Declare that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002234]

PETITION - LEASEHOLD TERMS IN CHASE PARK, SHERBURN VILLAGE

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I present this petition on behalf of my constituents, and in particular of the petition co-ordinator, Mr Steve Wrathmall.
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the terms and conditions associated with the lease extensions of leasehold property on the Chase Park Estate, Sherburn village, Durham, are unfair; and further that the current terms and conditions make it difficult to afford a lease extension and to sell or purchase the respective leasehold properties.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call on the current administrators of the leases on the Chase Park Estate to provide fair evaluation for the cost of lease extension, and to provide fair ground rent terms after the extension of a lease.
[P002235]

PETITION - LIANE SINGLETON

Jim McMahon: I rise to present a petition in the name of Liane Singleton. I should say that it is quite graphic, but it is the words of her parents who prepared the petition. I also present this on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is recovering from a hip operation.
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that on the 3rd of May 1998, our 18-year-old daughter was brutally murdered and dismembered, her body parts then put outside in bags with the rubbish further that her head was shattered with a monkey wrench, she was strangled, and her body was stamped on so hard, her liver was virtually split in two; further that the severity of Liane’s injuries, Police were unable to determine which one ended her short life; further that Liane’s murderer is soon to be considered for parole, but we strongly  believe he should remain behind bars for the good of society, and further to protect other parents and families from having to go through the torture and heartbreak that we have endured for the last 20 years.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the Liane Singleton case and any other information relating to it, and take action to stop the release.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002236]

PETITION - HOME EDUCATION: DRAFT GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to present a petition tonight from my constituent, Natasha Coull. It is on the subject of “Home education: call for evidence and revised DFE guidance”. There are just over 50 signatories. I know that, compared with others, that is not a particularly large number, but I know that the signatories are very passionate about this subject. I recall that, some years ago, I was the subject of one of the home educators’ lessons at one of their homes.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Carshalton and Wallington constituency,
Declare that the “Home education: call for evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002237]

PETITION - HOME EDUCATION: DRAFT GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION

Richard Burden: I rise to present a petition from home educators in my constituency, led by Abigail Purkis and Anne Lyse. The wording of the petition is identical to previous petitions on this subject this evening.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Birmingham Northfield,
Declare that the “Home Education: Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002238]

Road Restructuring: Oxfordshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mims Davies.)

Robert Courts: In this House, we often spend a great deal of time discussing national and international issues, but we ought not to forget that sometimes it is the seemingly smaller issues that make a real difference to the lives of the residents we represent. For many of my constituents in West Oxfordshire—rural or town dwellers alike—their first journey to work or to school takes place in a car. Even a short uneventful journey can be marred by the phenomenon known as potholes, which are caused by poorly kept roads.
Potholes may seem like a small problem, but they are in fact a large one, and there are several reasons for that. There is of course the pure discomfort and irritation that affects everybody’s quality of life, but things are much more serious than that. On small, poorly lit rural roads, particularly in winter, there is a real danger to the people who are navigating those roads. There is a danger to life and limb, and there is a danger to property. Many constituents have written to me to explain how they have spent many hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds on vehicle repairs having hit a pothole. This is unquestionably one of the most frequently raised issues with me on the doorstep, so I am grateful to the House for giving me the time to bring the matter before the Minister and to ask for his help.
With the House’s permission, I will read out from one or two emails that I have received from constituents as an illustration of the scale of the problem. Peter from Bampton said that the road near him was like
“driving on a ploughed field.”
A couple from Finstock said that they have lived in West Oxfordshire their whole lives and are “ashamed of our roads”. Perhaps Paul from Standlake puts it best:
“The roads in the area are an absolute disgrace, and downright dangerous in many places.”
Indeed, as an illustration, I was pleased this week to welcome to Parliament for a tour a group of students and parents who had entered my West Oxfordshire schools photography competition. One of the parents took me aside and said, “While I’ve got you, could I please take a minute or two of your time to talk to you about potholes?” We cannot possibly overstate the importance of this matter to the residents of West Oxfordshire and Oxfordshire as a whole, and there will be many Members from rural and urban areas alike who will agree.

Jim Shannon: Through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the opportunity to visit an RAF base along with the hon. Gentleman and experienced the roads in his constituency, so I understand that this is an important issue not only for him, but for everyone in the House. There is huge tourism potential in the hon. Gentleman’s beautiful constituency, so does he agree that we need massive infrastructure investment to ensure that roads are clearly marked, easy to use and in decent condition? Tourism is about visiting big cities and visiting and enjoying rural idylls such as his constituency, but people can do that only if the roads are decent.

Robert Courts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that excellent point and for joining me on that trip to RAF Brize Norton, which I like to speak about in the House as often as I can. This matter is important for tourism, absolutely, because it forms part of the offer and image that we project of our local area, but it is equally important for businesses, which are moving goods around and will wear the costs of vehicle repairs, and for private individuals.
The scale of the issue and of people’s concerns should not be underestimated. The issue is not specific to Oxfordshire, but it is more keenly felt because of the many miles of rural roads, which make maintenance a real challenge. The road network in Oxfordshire is 2,994 miles long—15% is A roads, 10% is B roads and 75% are C or unclassified roads, which are the small rural lanes to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred. The high proportion of C or U roads are often not built to the modern standards that we would expect were the roads to be built now. They are essentially old cart tracks through the rural county which have had tarmac added to them over the decades, and rural locations are hard for maintenance teams to reach to make repairs. That is a particular problem when temperatures drop so low during the winter months.

Alex Chalk: Does my hon. Friend agree that what frustrates people across the country, and certainly in Cheltenham, is that contractors are often getting away with poor quality repairs? If they just did the job properly in the first place, the repair would have a chance of holding and would not leak at the first sign of frost.

Robert Courts: My hon. Friend makes a superb point. I have mentioned the concerns raised when I knock on people’s doors, and people express that frustration that potholes come back a few months after being repaired. They just wish it was done properly so that did not happen. The problem is particularly acute around street works, metalwork and so on. The Government are consulting on moves to try to remove metalwork from the roads and to put it on verges and footpaths, where it is safe to do so, as a way of making sure that the phenomenon my hon. Friend rightly mentions is ameliorated. We have to find a way to ensure that repairs remain sound not for a few weeks or months but for years to come.

John Howell: Oxfordshire County Council has been given close to £20 million to solve this problem. Why does my hon. Friend think we are seeing no great improvement, despite the advent of “dragon patchers”? When the council has that money, why does it not try to fix the problem?

Robert Courts: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and the Government have certainly been giving more money to local authorities, which are responsible for repairing the roads—I am sure the Minister will refer to that. I have provided some details of the scale of the problem, which perhaps has a great deal to do with it. We have a very rural area, and it is very adversely affected by weather.
One point that I have not yet covered, which relates to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), is the impact of development and of very heavy lorries. When a housing estate is built,  heavy materials such as breeze blocks, girders, bricks and wood have to be brought in on small, narrow roads. There is a lot of development going on in Oxfordshire, which is a growing and economically busy area. That really adds to the scale of the challenge. The bigger the roads, the bigger the trucks and the greater the damage.
I briefly mentioned the challenge caused by the winter. The snow in December 2017 and further freezes in January and March 2018 have damaged an already fragile network, and it is worth noting that Oxfordshire has a lower proportion of roads assessed as good than the national average, but it also has a lower than average proportion of roads assessed as poor. Although Oxfordshire has a higher than average proportion of roads assessed as fair, fair means five to 15 years of life remaining. That is not a catastrophic state of affairs, but clearly it is an issue that requires a long-term solution.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for mentioning the work of Oxfordshire County Council. Of course we would like the council to do more, but I would also like us to recognise the work it has been doing, particularly in recent weeks and months, while drawing the House’s attention to the requirement for further works.
Oxfordshire County Council has 18 crews working on roads in the county, and I understand that is the largest number of crews it has ever used. In the summer it usually has only six crews, so the council is very much aware of the scale of the problem and is working hard to make changes
As my hon. Friend rightly said, Oxfordshire owns two dragon patching machines and shares a third with the highway authority. The machines, which are somewhat dramatically named, use hot tarmac to melt and mend potholes. Rather than just filling the potholes, which means the filler often comes out again, the dragon patchers melt and rework the surface, which is more efficient and lasts longer. Of course, it is much cheaper, too—costing about £22 per defect, compared with £80 per defect using the normal cut-and-fill method. That will help, but it only really helps in rural areas because the surrounding tarmac is melted in the process. That rural area is assisted by dragon patchers. Small crews are able to travel across the county to fix holes more quickly and cheaply and to handle traffic management at the same time. All these steps mean that the council has fixed more than 28,000 defects, of which about 23,000 were potholes, since January 2018. We are talking about potholes, drains and damaged signs.

Alex Chalk: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so infuriating for residents is seeing one defect repaired but surrounding defects left or areas that we all know are going to crumble in the next frost left unattended? Do we not have to find a more efficient way of fixing holes and the defects around them?

Robert Courts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I was wondering whether he was going to make that point in his earlier intervention, because this is linked to that. He rightly says that people find it frustrating is when one pothole is done but another a foot away is left because it does not meet the intervention level. We all understand that there has to be an intervention level at which county councils start to undertake work; otherwise,  we will be trying to have a bowling green surface and, clearly, it is unreasonable to expect any county council to provide that.
There is a solution, which I will come to shortly. It is why I have entitled this debate “Road Restructuring: Oxfordshire”, as that is what we need to be looking at. Let me give the last of my statistics. In March alone, 5,146 potholes in Oxfordshire were fixed. A lot of work is being done; this is a major task, but a lot is happening as we speak.
I also thank the Minister and the Government for what they have done, as we must not forget that. They have acknowledged the extent of this issue—I have raised it before, and Oxfordshire received an extra £2.9 million in funding from the Department for Transport to repair roads damaged last winter. That included a £1.5 million pothole grant and £1.3 million from the flood resilience fund. I am delighted that, with extraordinary timing—I am grateful to those at the Table Office for having pulled this debate out of the hat when they did—the county council’s cabinet approved just yesterday an extra £10 million for road repairs across Oxfordshire. That will pay for a further 46 miles of surface improvements and 52,000 square metres of patching; this is on top of the £8.5 million already spent on carriageways and footway repairs.
Much as I thank the county council for that, and much as I thank the Government for the money they have given, more needs to be done, and residents of all our constituencies, and certainly those in West Oxfordshire, will be expecting me to push for more. The council has agreed in principle to invest a further £120 million over the next 10 years. That is funded by borrowing, so it will have to manage its finances correctly, although I know and trust that it will be able to do that. I would, however, like to register my concern that that is something the county council is having to look at doing, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has rightly alluded to, what is happening not just in West Oxfordshire, but across the whole UK, is that the roads fundamentally need restructuring.
We are dealing with the fact that tarmac has been added to roads, which over the years have been patched and repaired. What really needs to happen is the removal of that whole surface layer, and kerbs need to be put in, along with sound, watertight, weight-proof surfaces. I accept that that is easier said than done. I understand that to bring the whole of Oxfordshire’s road network up to an acceptable standard would cost about £250 million, with a further £21 million required to keep that going through resurfacing and £5 million a year needed for regular maintenance work, such as gully cleaning.
We can use modern technology, such as the FixMyStreet app, whereby people can take a photograph of the defect and send it to the county council, which will come to carry out the repair, and people can see the log of the complaint. That is brilliant and I encourage all hon. Members to speak to their constituents to encourage them to use it. However, it does mean that councils’ workloads are dramatically increasing, because each time a defect is reported, someone has to go to look at it. Although this is very efficient, it means a lot more work is required.
I know that others want to get in on this debate, but I just wish to say something about solutions. I would like to reassure the Minister that I am not demanding that  he give me a £250 million cheque for Oxfordshire this evening, although if he has got one, I will gladly receive it—I can see that he is checking his pockets as I speak. The road network in Oxfordshire is going to undergo a dramatic transformation in the near future. We have the Oxford to Milton Keynes and Cambridge expressway. We are looking at A40 improvements, which are necessary; the housing infrastructure fund bid has gone in and the major road network fund is involved in respect of work on the A40 and A420 in the Wantage constituency. All of this, if successful, will bring much needed improvements to the road network and ease congestion. The Minister will know how often I raise the issue of the A40, and it would not be right if I did not mention it again today.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has very clearly outlined the important issues on the roads, but does he accept—I say this from the knowledge that I gained of his constituency when we were both involved in the scheme that I mentioned—that the roads were not built to take the current levels of traffic, and they need to be able to do so. May I also mention rural areas and the fact that tractors and vehicles are very large and the roads are not built for them either?

Robert Courts: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In rural areas, agricultural traffic of tractors and combine harvesters is an added pressure.
The point that I particularly want to make before I conclude is that while much of it is wonderful, we do need extra work on the A40 in particular to ease congestion. That will be effective only if the feeder roads for those major roads are also repaired. That is important.
I raised the issue of potholes with the Minister in May this year. I was very pleased that he agreed with me that we need a more strategic approach to ensure that those C and U roads are not left out. We need to look at that lattice work of small rural roads that lead to the main trunk roads in a strategic way. I am looking forward to hearing from him, perhaps today or in the near future, about his plans on that score.
One thing is absolutely clear: potholes are not just a nuisance, but a real danger to people travelling either at speed on a trunk road or navigating a small rural road at night. They are a huge expense to drivers, and we must ensure that we invest what is required in our road network so that we have modern roads for a modern county.

Matt Rodda: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for indulging me tonight. As a former councillor who served on our transport committee, I do understand and appreciate the issues that the hon. Gentleman faces; significant potholes are a huge problem for many motorists, cyclists and, indeed, pedestrians. I have a great deal of sympathy for him and for the issues that he faces.
I want to raise the related and important issue of the need for a third Thames bridge joining Reading and south Oxfordshire, which links into the overall need for greater infrastructure in Oxfordshire and the surrounding counties of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. This is of great importance to my constituents and to many other neighbouring residents in other parts of Berkshire.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the following issues. There are, indeed, a number of bottlenecks across the Thames, and, from speaking to him in the past, I believe that he has experienced lengthy delays at one of them going into Henley, so I hope that he will be sympathetic. Reading has a particular issue: it has a rapidly growing population. It has doubled in size over the past 70 years, added 10,000 extra people in the past 10 years, and the two existing bridges date from the 1920s. I should say, though, that they are positively youthful compared with the neighbouring Sonning Bridge, which straddles the Oxfordshire-Berkshire border and which dates from the 18th century. As a result, we suffer from major delays, which have a significant impact on both residents and businesses in the area. Indeed, many commuters from south Oxfordshire struggle to get into work in Reading or in neighbouring towns in Woodley and in Maidenhead, which is in the Prime Minister’s constituency, and they are very keen to see a new bridge.
On the possibilities going forward, there is widespread support for action. Indeed, the Prime Minister, as a very well-known and good constituency MP for Maidenhead, has been quoted in local council meetings as being very sympathetic to this issue. Wokingham Borough Council, our neighbouring local authority on the Berkshire side, is supportive. Oxfordshire County Council, at a meeting that I attended last year, agreed in principle that there was a need for a bridge. Indeed, other bridges have been put across the Thames in Oxfordshire—in Wallingford, in central Oxfordshire, for example, and Culham, in a similar area, is due to have a new bridge as well. There is a desire in Oxfordshire for further infrastructure linked with the growth of the central part of the county, linking the growing towns and cities of Oxford, Didcot and Banbury. However, the county council does not have the resource for this bridge in our part of Oxfordshire. I seek to work with it and other partners in Government to persuade others who may be more reticent about it to support this project.
I would like to stress in my remaining time that a credible plan has been put forward by Reading and Wokingham councils. A route has been identified. Research has been carried out that shows that this would reduce many of the local pressures in the area, including in Henley and Reading town centres. There is support from a number of local councils, there is cross-party support and there is support from businesses, and we would now like to raise the matter with the Minister.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for indulging me tonight. This is a very worthwhile project, which links to the concerns that colleagues in Oxfordshire have expressed about their infrastructure. It would have huge benefits for local people and businesses. I urge the Minister to investigate it further and to work on it with colleagues from across parties.

Jesse Norman: It is a delight for me to be able to speak to this very important issue, and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing the debate. Those who are watching may not be aware of this, but by Adjournment debate standards, this is a packed House. With all these interventions and speeches, it resembles nothing so much as the circus maximus, by comparison with our regular evening debates.
I can only congratulate the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on crowbarring the topic of his bridge into a debate about local roads in Oxfordshire. He has made his point on the record, and that is all good. As to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, he has been, as he gently and delicately alluded to, a vigorous campaigner on such issues, and rightly so. One noticed his background as a lawyer in his skilful marshalling of data and arguments into a forensic case of great strength.
I will come to local roads in due course, but I want to start by touching on an important new development, from the Government’s standpoint, which relates to the situation of local roads. That is the introduction of a major road network, which is designed to embrace key local roads in a much longer-term funding approach. As my hon. Friend will know, the major road network is designed to serve a series of important objectives: to reduce congestion; to support economic growth and economic rebalancing; to support housing delivery; to benefit cyclists and pedestrians, as well as road users; and, of course, to take some of the pressure off the strategic road network.
I am pleased to say that the major road network will be funded by the new national roads fund—I hope to make an announcement on that relatively soon—which will, in turn, be funded by the receipts from vehicle excise duty and used to invest in these vital roads and deliver a better performance for all users.
My hon. Friend has campaigned to ease congestion, which he quite rightly recognised, on the A40 in Oxfordshire. I assure him that the A40 is on the indicative map for the MRN. Whether that is the final map remains to be decided, given all the input from our consultation earlier this year. We intend to publish guidance on the MRN and to confirm the network by the end of the year. If the A40 were to be included, I would encourage my hon. Friend to work with local and regional partners—I am sure he will do so—to make the case for MRN funding.
I turn to local highways. I think it is widely understood, as my hon. Friend has said, that the local road network is one of our most valuable national assets and an essential component not merely of people’s economic prosperity, but of their social wellbeing. It is therefore very important to the Government to keep local roads in good condition. After all, they represent 98% of our national highway network. To that end, we place a legal duty on local authorities to maintain the highway under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.
Good roads are not simply a matter for individuals and families as they go about their lives; they are essential for businesses and important for commercial success. I get plenty of correspondence on this issue. If we were to take a straw poll of Members of Parliament on the importance of addressing potholes and improving local roads, I think we would have a vote of 650 to zero in favour, because everyone believes in it. As colleagues will know, the Government have already taken major steps. We are investing more than £6 billion in funding to local highway authorities in England outside London between 2015 and 2021, and that includes nearly £300 million for a pothole action fund. As my hon. Friend has said, that fund has been of some value in   Oxfordshire. The overall pot of funding is not ring-fenced. Its use is entirely at the discretion of highway authorities, based on their local needs and priorities—and rightly so—to enable them to address the issues they face in their own areas. We recommend that authorities publish a statement on their website as to how that funding is allocated, in the spirit of proper transparency and open accountability to local people. For our part, we allocate part of our funding to local authorities based on the level that they have themselves reached on the path to what we consider to be a proper, adequate asset management plan.
There is of course a backlog of repairs, and the recent winter has certainly not made the situation any better. That backlog is a legacy of past underinvestment that we are seeking to correct. Its effect hitherto has been that roads have been improving, at least until this year’s series of cold snaps in the winter. My hon. Friend will know from the road condition statistics that A roads and B and C roads combined have seen a gradual improvement—fewer roads have been considered for maintenance in the past five years.
But of course we believe very strongly that more can be done in this area, and we intend to do more. We therefore champion the need for proper, planned, preventive maintenance based on seeing the road not merely as something, as it were, to be topped up periodically from time to time, but as a recognised asset subject to proper capital asset management principles. It is clear that organisations more widely that have adopted asset management principles can demonstrate benefits in terms of financial efficiency, improved accountability, value for money, and improved customer service. We see no reason why this is not doable with local authorities. Indeed, the evidence is that it is already starting to bear fruit for them.
We continue to offer a lot of money based on a funding formula, as my hon. Friend will know. That was reviewed in 2015 and followed consultation with the highways maintenance sector, including local authorities. We agreed, as part of that, that funding would be based on the local highway assets, including road length, the number of bridges with a span of 1.5 metres or more, and streetlights. We think that the formula is, overall, a fair and equitable way of allocating funding. However, it is important to say that we have also decided to allocate £578 million between 2016-17 and 2020-21. That is to be based on local authorities’ own performances as a matter of incentive payments. It therefore provides an incentive for local authorities to treat their roads as assets and manage them properly as a result.
I would like to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is no longer in his seat, alas, asked about utilities. We are very concerned that utilities should make proper reinstatements of the road surface to make it fit for purpose. We have powers that deal with such issues. We are seeking to update those according to what are known in the trade as the “Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways” rules in order to make sure that disruption to the travelling public is minimised where possible.
We have a variety of other schemes designed to serve that end. For example, lane rental schemes apply to the most congested 5% of the network in local authority   areas that choose to adopt them. They have been successfully trialled in London and Kent and we are looking to allow other authorities to set them up in future. We have Street Manager, which is a very important new digital service that may help to transform the planning, management and communication of local works. We are also seeking to encourage local authorities to use permitting schemes, to the extent that they can, in order to reduce the impact of congestion and better plan and co-ordinate their own works. We are using new technologies. Pothole-spotter trials are being led by the Department in partnership with Thurrock, Yorkshire and Wiltshire councils, with significant private sector input. Those trials, in at least one case, have already won awards for the best use of technology in the highways industry.
We recognise the importance of this issue. We work very closely with the Association of Directors of Planning, Environment and Transport, the RAC Foundation and others. I have met those organisations and others to discuss this issue. As my hon. Friend knows, I want a new settlement for local roads that is long term, transparent and strategic. We recognise their value. We want to bring the same kind of thinking to them that we have seen with the strategic road network and the major road network.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

1. European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement) (Armenia) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 535, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

2. European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Association Agreement) (Central America) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 534, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

3. European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement) (Cuba) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 534, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

4. European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Strategic Partnership Agreement) (Canada) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 534, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

5. European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Agreement) (Australia) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 534, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

6. European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation) (New Zealand) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 536, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

7. Exiting the European Union

That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 311, Noes 262.

Question accordingly agreed to.